SURRINDER LAL Vs. REGISTRAR, (DISTRICT JUDGE) SRINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners named above for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction for quashing the impugned order. Petitioners have averred that they are the owners of the Agricultural land in village Rakh Buran, Tehsil Sonawari District Baramulla. The said village is situate within the territorial limits of registration of Sonawari District Baramulla and any instrument of alienation pertaining to the said land can, therefore, be registered either by the Sub Registrar Sonawari or Registrar Baramulla. Neither the Sub Registrar of Sub District of Srinagar nor the Registrar of Srinagar has jurisdiction to register any deed pertaining to land situate in the above mentioned village. That one Amar Nath Tikku is a petition writer and carries on his practice at Saddar Court Srinagar. The said petition writer has written many documents and applications of the petitioner No. 1 and other petitioners and is fully aware of the fact that the petitioner No. 1 holds power of attorney on behalf of the other petitioners. Somewhere in the month of April 1969 the petitioner No. 1 came to know that the respondent No. 5 above named in collusion with the said petition writer has got a sale deed forged on 19th of September 1968 allegedly executed by the petitioner No. 1 on his behalf and on behalf of the other petitioners as their attorney in favour of respondent No. 5 for 45 kanals and six marlas of land situate in village Rakh Buran Tehsil Sonawari. The said forged sale deed was presented by the respondent with the abetment of the said petition writer not before the Sub -Registrar Sonawari within whose jurisdiction the land is situate, but in order to suppress the forgery the said document was presented before the Sub Registrar Srinagar respondent No. 2 who without vires recorded an order of refusal on the ground that according to the affidavit of the vendee the vendors were avoiding to appear for registration. The order of presentation and refusal endorsed by the respondent No. 2 is on the face of it without jurisdiction. Against the order of refusal dated 10 -10 -1968 respondent No. 5 went up in appeal to the Registrar Srinagar respondent No. 1 who entertained the appeal and issued summons to the petitioner. But the respondent No. 5 in collusion with the process server succeeded in setting the false report that the petitioners had refused to accept service of summons. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 the Registrar accepted the appeal against the void order of the respondent No. 2 without jurisdiction and unauthorisedly directed the Sub Registrar concerned to register the sale deed. His order is dated 25 -2 -58. Thereafter the respondent No. 5 collected the forged sale deed from the office of the respondent No. 1 alongwith a copy of the order dated 25 -2 -1969 of the respondent No. 1 and presented the same before the Sub -Registrar Sonawari who without looking to the fact that he was not posted within the registration District of Srinagar and therefore the order of the Registrar Srinagar was nullity and was not binding on him illegally registered the document in pursuance of the order of the Registrar. Nor could the impugned sale deed be presented before him beyond four months period and in absence of the vendors of the deed. It is averred that this registration endorsement of the respondent No. 3 is null and void and without jurisdiction and in law the sale deed is without registration. That the sale deed being void and the orders passed by the Sub -Registrar being without jurisdiction, it is prayed that an appropriate writ be issued in favour of the petitioners. The petition is supported by an affidavit.

(2.) IN this case only respondent No. 5 has appeared. Against the other respondents the case has been set exparte as none has appeared on their behalf. In his objections the respondent No. 5 has stated that the writ petition is misconceived. The petitioners have alternate remedy available both under the Registration Act as well as by way of civil suit. In fact the petitioners have already filed a civil suit which is pending trial in the court of Munsiff Sumbal ; as such the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked way of filing the writ petition. About the sale deed it is averred that it was executed by the petitioners in Srinagar who chose the petition writer and after executing the sale deed misrepresented to the respondent No. 5 to present the sale deed in Srinagar for registration. The registration was refused by the Sub Registrar. Thereupon an appeal was filed before the Registrar Srinagar. That every thing was maneuvered by the petitioner No. 1 and at this stage he could not be allowed to make a grievance out of it. The allegation of forgery of the sale deed required thorough investigation which could not be gone into in the writ proceedings. On this count also the writ petition was not maintainable. In the end it is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

(3.) THE relevant record relating to the sale deed and its registration has been summoned and is on the file. The impugned order and the sale deed have also been filed.