GANESHRAM Vs. PARAS FINANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by one of the defendants against the order of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated 16. 4. 1983 holding that the document in question was validly registered and admissible in evidence.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff M/s Paras Finance Co. filed a suit in the court of Additional District Judge, Sirohi for recovery of Rs. 59,392. 15 on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 22. 11. 1965, registered on 29. 11. 1965 by the District Registrar, Jodhpur, against Kapoor Chand, defendant No. 1 who is non-petitioner No. 2 in the present revision and the present petitioner who is defendant No. 2. THE case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 1 had created a simple mortgage of the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff but thereafter the property in dispute was sold for recovery of some government dues and was purchased by the present petitioner. THE plaintiff wants to enforce the liability under the mortgage against the present petitioner also. In the suit the defendant No. 1 viz, Kapoor Chand, the mortgagor accepted his liability under the suit mortgage and submitted that the amount of mortgage should be realised from the present petitioner defendant No. 2. THE petitioner has, on the other hand denied this liability inter alia on the ground that the mortgage dated 28. 11. 1965 is void and the document is inadmissible in evidence inter alia on the ground that the District Registrar, Jodhpur had no jurisdiction or authority to register that document as no part of the property was situated within his jurisdiction and all the properties were situated in Sumerpur, District Pali. THE court below, on the allegations of the parties framed a number of issues including issue No. 19 which reads as under :- "whether the District Registrar, Jodhpur was not competent to register the suit mortgage and the registration of the said mortgage was against law and, therefore, the suit mortgage was void and ineffective. ?" This issue was treated as a preliminary issue and the learned Addl. District Judge after hearing the parties decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 2, holding that the District Registrar, Jodhpur was competent to register the mortgage deed in question, even though, the property is situated in Sumerpur by virtue of section 30 (2) of the Registration Act and as such the registration is valid and the document is admissible in evidence. It is against this order of the learned Additional District Judge Sirohi dated 16. 4. 1983 that the defendant No. 2 has come up in revision.

(3.) A bare perusal of section 10 would clearly show that when the Legislature referred to the Registrar of a district including a Presidency town it clearly meant the Registrar of a district in which a Presidency town is situate and that is way two separate provisions in respect of the absence of the Registrar of an ordinary district and Registrar of a district including a Presidency town have been made. That being so, section 30 (2) of the Registration Act can only be interpreted to me as that it is only a Registrar of a district in which a Presidency town is situate who can exercise jurisdiction in registering documents irrespective of the situation of the properties referred to in the document to be registered. In other words, all District Registrars cannot exercise the power of registering documents in relation to properties which are not situated within their own districts. So far as such Registrars, i. e. Registrars of districts other than a district including a Presidency town are concerned, section 30 (1) of the Registration Act makes it clear that they may register the document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to them. Thus their powers are limited only to their own districts and they cannot register documents which relate to properties situate outside their districts. Only the Registrars of districts in which Presidency towns are situate are empowered to register documents without regard to the situation in any part of India of the property to which the document relates, if we apply this principle to the present case the inevitable conclusion is that the district Registrar Jodhpur could not have registered the mortgage deed in question inasmuch as admittedly no part of the property referred to in the mortgage deed was situated within his jurisdiction and all the properties were situated in Sumerpur, district Pali. The learned Additional District Judge has relied upon Lalvanai v. Kunnappa (1952 Madras 802) in holding that the district Registrar, Jodhpur could validly register the document in question, but in my opinion that authority has no application to the present case. That case, as a matter of fact related to the provisions of section 29 (2) whereunder a copy of a decree or order may be presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar in whose sub-district the original decree or order was made or where the decree or order does not affect immovable property in the office of any other Sub-Registrar under the State Government at which all the persons claiming under the decree or order desire the copy to be registered. In that case instead of getting the decree registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar of the place where the decree was passed, the decree was got registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar of a place where the property in dispute was situate and it was in these circumstances that it was held that the registration could not be said to be invalid.