Skip to content


Jeewan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 128 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Raj53
ActsRegistration Act, 1908 - Sections 34, 35, 35(3) and 72; Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantJeewan Ram
RespondentState of Rajasthan and anr.
Appellant Advocate Chandmal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Kansingh, Asst. Govt. Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases ReferredNalla Goundar v. Krishnaswami Naicker
Excerpt:
- - it is not the business of the registering officer to see whether a particular document is against any other law in force for the time being if the conditions prescribed for registration under sections 34 and 35, registration act or any supplemental law are satisfied......consider whether the provisions of the registration act or of such other acts in which there are provisions supplemental to the registration act have been complied with. it is no part of the registrar's duty to see that other laws are complied with before the document is registered.we may in this connection refer to -- 'nalla goundar v. krishnaswami naicker', air 1945 mad 465 (a). we respectfully agree with the reasoning in that case, and consider it necessary only to point out further that though the general law of the land has provisions which make documents executed by minors, idiots or lunatics ineffective, there is a special provision under section 35(3)(b), registration act specifically authorising the registering officer to refuse registration on the ground of minority, idiocy.....
Judgment:

Wanchoo, C.J.

1. This is an application by Jeewanram under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, which may be appropriate in the case.

2. The applicant's case is that he purchased a plot of land measuring 18 Biswas in Chak Beed-wala for a sum of Rs. 100/- and got a sale-deed executed in his favour on 3-5-1952. The applicant is a Jat, while the vendor Girdhari is a barber. The applicant presented for registration the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar of Hanumangarh on that very day. The Sub-Registrar, however, refused to register the deed, and his reason for the refusal was that the seller and the purchaser did not belong to the same community or group of castes. He relied on Notification No. 108 dated 11-10-1943, issued by the Government of Bikaner, and published in the Bikaner Rajpatra, dated 30-10-1943, at page 430, read with Notification No. 66 of 29-9-1945, published in Bikaner Rajpatra of 6-10-1945. These notifications put certain restrictions on the sale of land without the permission of the revenue authorities. The applicant says that the restrictions put in these notifications are void in view of Articles 14, 15 and 19(f) of the Constitution. He, therefore, prays that rule 3 of Notification No. 108 read with Notification No. 66 be declared null and void, and the Sub-Registrar be ordered to register the sale-deed.

2a. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.

3. It is not necessary for purposes of this case to go into the question whether notification No. 108 read with notification No. 66 is now abrogated as it is against the provisions in Part III of the Constitution for the present application can be disposed of on the preliminary objection that has been raised on behalf of the State, namely that there was an equally beneficial convenient and effective remedy available to the applicant, and he has not availed himself of the same. This remedy, it is said, was by way of an appeal to the Registrar under Section 72, Registration Act.

4. The order of the Sub-Registrar, dated 3-5-1952 proceeds on the ground that notification No. 108 read with notification No. 66 mentioned above forbids sale of such land by a barber to a jat, and therefore the sale-deed could not be registered. We are of opinion that it was no part of the duty of the Sub-Registrar to go outside the powers conferred on him under Ss. 34 and 35, Registration Act and such provisions of other laws which have been made definitely supplemental to the Registration Act. Sections 34 and 35. Registration Act provide what a registering officer has tosee before registering a document. Briefly speaking, he has to see that the document is presented in the manner prescribed by the Registration Act and by a person authorised to present it and before an officer authorised to register it. Before registering a document, the registering officer has to enquire whether or not the document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. He has also to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document. In the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, he has further to satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. Thereafter, he cannot refuse to register the document except on the grounds mentioned in Section 35(3), Registration Act, or under the provisions of any other law which has been definitely made supplemental to the Registration Act. It is not the business of the registering officer to see whether a particular document is against any other law in force for the time being if the conditions prescribed for registration under Sections 34 and 35, Registration Act or any supplemental law are satisfied. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Sub-Registrar in this case was wrong in refusing registration of this document on the ground that it contravened certain provisions of notification No. 108 read with notification No. 66 already mentioned above.

5. The Registration Act, however, provides a remedy for such improper refusal on the part of the Sub-Registrar, and it is to be found in Section 72, of the Act. That section provides for an appeal to the Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order, and the Registrar has the power to reverse or alter such order. Learned counsel for the applicant urges that even if he had appealed to the Registrar, he could not have got the remedy that he wanted, and therefore this Court should give him remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The argument is put in two ways. In the first place, it is urged that the applicant wants a declaration that certain provisions in notification No. 108 have now been abrogated in view of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, and the Registrar could not give this relief. We have, however, to see the real relief which the applicant wants from this Court, and that is that the Sub-Registrar be directed to register the sale-deed. This being his real prayer, we have to see whether this relief could be granted to him by the Registrar under Section 72 without the necessity of deciding the validity of the two notifications. There is no doubt that it is no part of the duty of the registering officers, whether they be Sub-Registrars or Registrars, to decide whether a particular law is valid or invalid after coming into force of the Constitution. But if the Registrar, on appeal under Section 72, could give relief to the applicant without going into the question of the validity of Notification No. 108, the applicant would have got from the Registrar all that he wants from us. We are of opinion that the Registrar could, in this case, give the desired relief to the applicant by ordering registration of the document, without going into the validity of the two notifications, and therefore the present application should be dismissed.

6. This brings us to the second line of argument which is based on Section 74(b). It is urged that that requires the Registrar to enquire, when dealing with an appeal under Section 72, whether the requirements of the law for the time being in force have been complied with on the part of the applicant,or the person presenting the document for registration so as to entitle the document to be registered, and that the Registrar would, in view of this provision, have to consider whether notification No. 108 had been complied with or not. We are, however, of opinion that Section 74(b) does not require the Registrar to consider the provisions of every law in force for the time being in order to decide whether a document can be registered or not. That provision only requires the Registrar to consider whether the provisions of the Registration Act or of such other Acts in which there are provisions supplemental to the Registration Act have been complied with. It is no part of the Registrar's duty to see that other laws are complied with before the document is registered.

We may in this connection refer to -- 'Nalla Goundar v. Krishnaswami Naicker', AIR 1945 Mad 465 (A). We respectfully agree with the reasoning in that case, and consider it necessary only to point out further that though the general law of the land has provisions which make documents executed by minors, idiots or lunatics ineffective, there is a special provision under Section 35(3)(b), Registration Act specifically authorising the registering officer to refuse registration on the ground of minority, idiocy or lunacy. If it was open to a registering officer to consider the general law of the land with respect to these matters, it would not have been necessary to provide specifically for this ground for refusing registration of a document. We are of opinion that under Section 74(b) the Registrar has only to consider the provisions of the Registration Act or such other law which may be supplemental to the Registration Act. What law can be called supplemental to the Registration Act will be clear from an illustration. Section 4, T. P. Act specifically provides that certain provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, as for example Section 54, paras. 2 and 3, Section 59, Section 107, and Section 123, shall be read as supplemental to the Indian Registration Act. There is nothing, however, in Notification No. 108 or No. 66 which says that a registering officer will not register a document which contravenes these notifications. Nor is it provided that any provision of these notifications is supplemental to the law of registration. Rule 8 of Notification No. 108 has reference to registration officers; but it does not prohibit the registration officers from registering documents which contravene this notification.

7. We are, therefore, of opinion that the applicant had another remedy open to him by way ofappeal under Section 72, Registration Act, and that ashe did not avail himself of that remedy which wasequally beneficial, convenient and effective, we arenot prepared to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in hisfavour. The application is hereby dismissed withcosts to the State.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //