It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there are many instances where the parties without any title seek to transfer such purported title which they do not have and legitimize the illegal act by the process of registration. That may be the ground reality. The Registering Authority, being conscious of such a fact, may consider himself obliged to prevent transfers by such illegal acts. However the jurisprudential rule that none can transfer a better title than what he has is indeed as elementary as it is basic. The Registering Authority, therefore, need not be take open itself the duty of a Civil Court which alone would go into question of title upon it being challenged. The law in that behalf is clear. In this case the Registering Authority has persisted in refusing to register the document on the ground that the title of the vendor has not been shown. It is only the Civil Court which would consider the title. There is nothing in the Registration Act or the Registration Manual to empower the Registrar in seeing or satisfying himself about the title of the vendor. Hence registration entails nothing more than the factum that the executants or their agents attended before the Registrar and admitted the execution of the document.
2. This writ petition challenges the orders of the Registering Authority and the Appellate Authority refusing to register a conveyance executed by and between a private limited company which was the builders of the building and the co-operative housing society of flat purchasers which has been registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The order of refusal sets out various provisions of various legislations which are claimed not to have been complied. These are inter alia Sections 7 & 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act as also Section 34 of the Indian Registration Act. The order further refers to Section 72(3) of the Maharashtra Registration Manual, Part II which requires compliance with Sections 19 to 26 and 33 to 35(b) of the Indian Registration Act.
3. The Registering Authority is required to register the document executed by the parties to present themselves before the Registering (2) (901) WP 1966/12
Authority and admit execution thereof. Consequently under the Indian Registration Act the following provisions would have to be complied for undertaking that procedure, the relevant part of which run thus : PART VI
OF PRESENTING DOCUMENTS FOR REGISTRATION
32. Persons to present documents for registration.- Except in the cases mentioned in every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office,-
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or
(b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.
34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered.
(2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times.
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon-
(a) enquire whether or not such document was
executed by the persons by whom it purports to
have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they
have executed the document; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a (3) (901) WP 1966/12
representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively.- (1) (a) If all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the person they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution,
the registering officer shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.
(2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated by this Act, examine any one present in his office.
(3) (a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or
(b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or
(c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution,
the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead:
......
4. Hence it is seen that the document would have to be presented (4) (901) WP 1966/12
before the registration office by the executors or their representatives. Once that is done the Registering Authority would see that the executors are personally present before him or their representative is present before him. The Registering Authority will also ask whether they admit the execution. The Registering Authority will satisfy himself that the persons before him are the persons they claim to be. If that is done, the Registering Authority must register the document.
5. It may be mentioned that the registration of a document shows nothing other than the fact that the document which is executed is admitted to have been executed or is executed before the Registering Authority. It does not prove the contents of the document. It is settled law that even certified copies issued by the Registering Authority do not prove the truth of the contents of the documents. They only prove the fact that the document was indeed registered as per procedure. [See Omprakash Berlia V/s. UTI, AIR 1983, Bombay 1].
6. Consequently it has been held in Gopal s/o Dwarkaprasad Pandey Vs. District Collector, Bhandara & Anr. 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 883 and in Mrs. Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 821 of 2010] that the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register on the ground of absence of the title of the executants or on the ground of defect of his title to the property. It is observed that such a requirement would be opposed to public policy. Consequently only the provisions of the aforesaid sections would be required to be complied.
7. Under the impugned orders the Registering Authorities have consistently maintained that the vendor mentioned in the conveyance deed had no title. The Registering Authority has been directed by this Court to (5) (901) WP 1966/12
specifically consider the aforesaid 2 judgments. In the impugned order dated 21.06.2012 a reference to the judgment is made in para 13. The judgments are not considered. The interpretation of those judgments is not made. The justification why the question of title is considered is also not shown. The impugned order merely refers to the aforesaid sections of various legislations. It is easy to see that the Joint Sub-Registrar, Andheri-1 and the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District have both misdirected themselves. Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act shows the persons competent to transfer an immovable property. Those are the persons competent to contract. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act shows the persons competent to contract. Those are the persons who are not minors, insolvents or persons of unsound mind. Section 54 defines a sale. Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act shows when facts which are not relevant becomes relevant in evidence. It is unconceivable how all the aforesaid provisions could have been present to the mind of the aforesaid authorities in respect of the procedural aspect of registering a document which comes before them. Even the registration manual which is relied upon refers to the provisions of statute of registration.
8. Going through the entire statute of registration, the following aspects of the provisions may come up for consideration: (1) The Registering Authority may refuse to register a document in a language not understood by the authority. (Section 19). (2) A document containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations which are not signed or initialed may be refused to be registered by the authority (section 20).
(3)A document relating to the transfer of immovable property not containing description of the property so as to identify it sufficiently may be refused to be registered. (Section 21(1)).
(6) (901) WP 1966/12
(4) If the numbering of the houses in a town in the document to be registered is not shown, it may be refused registration (Section 21(2)).
(5) The description of houses and land by their territorial division, roads, occupancies etc. if not made in the document by reference of a map or survey it may also be refused registration. (Section 21(3)). (6) Though houses in town would be required to be described by way of maps or survey numbers it could yet not be refused if the property is otherwise so described as to sufficiently identify it. (Section 22(2)). (7)A document presented 4 months after the date of its execution shall not be accepted for registration except for specified documents. (Section 23).
(8) If the document is executed by several persons at different times it may be presented again would require to be registered again and would be required to be registered when presented within the time specified for each execution (Section 24).
(9) A document presented outside the time limit for the reason of urgent necessity or unavoidable accident may be accepted upon payment of fine if the delay does not exceeds 4 months. (Section 25). (10)The executants, their representatives or agents authorized under the power-of-attorney would require to attend before the Registrar. (Section 32).
(11)The photographing and finger printing of the executant is compulsory. (Section 32A).
(12)A person may be represented by an authorised constituted attorney under a power-of-attorney. (Section 33).
(13)The executant may appear simultaneously or at different times. (Section 34(2).
(14) The Registering Authority would be entitled to inquire who executed (7) (901) WP 1966/12
the document and satisfy himself about the identity of the executant or his agent. (Section 34(3).
(15)The persons attending or their agents would be required to admit execution. (Section 35 (1) & (2).
(16) Only if the person attending denies execution, is seen to be a minor, idiot or a lunatic or is dead and the representative denies its execution, the Registering Authority is empowered to refuse registration of the document of the persons so denying, appearing or dead. (Section 35(3).
9. In this case the Registering Authority has persisted in refusing to register the document on the ground that the title of the vendor has not been shown. It is only the Civil Court which would consider the title. There is nothing in the Registration Act or the Registration Manual to empower the Registrar in seeing or satisfying himself about the title of the vendor. Hence registration entails nothing more than the factum that the executants or their agents attended before the Registrar and admitted the execution of the document.
10. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there are many instances where the parties without any title seek to transfer such purported title which they do not have and legitimize the illegal act by the process of registration. That may be the ground reality. The Registering Authority, being conscious of such a fact, may consider himself obliged to prevent transfers by such illegal acts. However the jurisprudential rule that none can transfer a better title than what he has is indeed as elementary as it is basic. The Registering Authority, therefore, need not be take open itself the duty of a Civil Court which alone would go into question of title upon it being challenged. The law in that behalf is clear. (8) (901) WP 1966/12
11. Counsel on behalf of the Registering Authority argued that the correspondence between the developer and the society was not produced before the Registering Authority. The completion and occupation certificates of the building were also not shown. One of the executants was not present and the provisions of various other statutes were not complied. The argument is completely misconceived. The impugned orders are passed on the basis that the vendor has no title. The judgments of the Court are merely enumerated in the impugned orders of the Collector and not heeded.
12. Consequently the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. Hence the rule is made absolute. The impugned orders dated 18.02.2012, 21.06.2012 Exhibits F & L to the petition are quashed and set aside. The Registering Authority shall register the Deed of Conveyance dated 9 th November, 2011 within 4 months from today when the parties to the conveyance present the documents for registration and admit the execution thereof. The time for registration is extended to that extent.
13. Since it was contended that the none was there to represent the vendor, the Court called upon the vendor's representative to remain present in Court. He has remained present and identified himself. His motor driving licence showing his photograph and signature is seen and returned. A photo copy of the identification is kept on record.
14. This order is stayed for 2 weeks.
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
Print Page
Bombay High Court
Chairman/Secretary vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 10 October, 2012
Bench: R. S. Dalvi
2. This writ petition challenges the orders of the Registering Authority and the Appellate Authority refusing to register a conveyance executed by and between a private limited company which was the builders of the building and the co-operative housing society of flat purchasers which has been registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The order of refusal sets out various provisions of various legislations which are claimed not to have been complied. These are inter alia Sections 7 & 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act as also Section 34 of the Indian Registration Act. The order further refers to Section 72(3) of the Maharashtra Registration Manual, Part II which requires compliance with Sections 19 to 26 and 33 to 35(b) of the Indian Registration Act.
3. The Registering Authority is required to register the document executed by the parties to present themselves before the Registering (2) (901) WP 1966/12
Authority and admit execution thereof. Consequently under the Indian Registration Act the following provisions would have to be complied for undertaking that procedure, the relevant part of which run thus : PART VI
OF PRESENTING DOCUMENTS FOR REGISTRATION
32. Persons to present documents for registration.- Except in the cases mentioned in every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office,-
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or
(b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.
34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered.
(2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times.
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon-
(a) enquire whether or not such document was
executed by the persons by whom it purports to
have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they
have executed the document; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a (3) (901) WP 1966/12
representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively.- (1) (a) If all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the person they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution,
the registering officer shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.
(2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated by this Act, examine any one present in his office.
(3) (a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or
(b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or
(c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution,
the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead:
......
4. Hence it is seen that the document would have to be presented (4) (901) WP 1966/12
before the registration office by the executors or their representatives. Once that is done the Registering Authority would see that the executors are personally present before him or their representative is present before him. The Registering Authority will also ask whether they admit the execution. The Registering Authority will satisfy himself that the persons before him are the persons they claim to be. If that is done, the Registering Authority must register the document.
5. It may be mentioned that the registration of a document shows nothing other than the fact that the document which is executed is admitted to have been executed or is executed before the Registering Authority. It does not prove the contents of the document. It is settled law that even certified copies issued by the Registering Authority do not prove the truth of the contents of the documents. They only prove the fact that the document was indeed registered as per procedure. [See Omprakash Berlia V/s. UTI, AIR 1983, Bombay 1].
6. Consequently it has been held in Gopal s/o Dwarkaprasad Pandey Vs. District Collector, Bhandara & Anr. 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 883 and in Mrs. Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 821 of 2010] that the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register on the ground of absence of the title of the executants or on the ground of defect of his title to the property. It is observed that such a requirement would be opposed to public policy. Consequently only the provisions of the aforesaid sections would be required to be complied.
7. Under the impugned orders the Registering Authorities have consistently maintained that the vendor mentioned in the conveyance deed had no title. The Registering Authority has been directed by this Court to (5) (901) WP 1966/12
specifically consider the aforesaid 2 judgments. In the impugned order dated 21.06.2012 a reference to the judgment is made in para 13. The judgments are not considered. The interpretation of those judgments is not made. The justification why the question of title is considered is also not shown. The impugned order merely refers to the aforesaid sections of various legislations. It is easy to see that the Joint Sub-Registrar, Andheri-1 and the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District have both misdirected themselves. Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act shows the persons competent to transfer an immovable property. Those are the persons competent to contract. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act shows the persons competent to contract. Those are the persons who are not minors, insolvents or persons of unsound mind. Section 54 defines a sale. Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act shows when facts which are not relevant becomes relevant in evidence. It is unconceivable how all the aforesaid provisions could have been present to the mind of the aforesaid authorities in respect of the procedural aspect of registering a document which comes before them. Even the registration manual which is relied upon refers to the provisions of statute of registration.
8. Going through the entire statute of registration, the following aspects of the provisions may come up for consideration: (1) The Registering Authority may refuse to register a document in a language not understood by the authority. (Section 19). (2) A document containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations which are not signed or initialed may be refused to be registered by the authority (section 20).
(3)A document relating to the transfer of immovable property not containing description of the property so as to identify it sufficiently may be refused to be registered. (Section 21(1)).
(6) (901) WP 1966/12
(4) If the numbering of the houses in a town in the document to be registered is not shown, it may be refused registration (Section 21(2)).
(5) The description of houses and land by their territorial division, roads, occupancies etc. if not made in the document by reference of a map or survey it may also be refused registration. (Section 21(3)). (6) Though houses in town would be required to be described by way of maps or survey numbers it could yet not be refused if the property is otherwise so described as to sufficiently identify it. (Section 22(2)). (7)A document presented 4 months after the date of its execution shall not be accepted for registration except for specified documents. (Section 23).
(8) If the document is executed by several persons at different times it may be presented again would require to be registered again and would be required to be registered when presented within the time specified for each execution (Section 24).
(9) A document presented outside the time limit for the reason of urgent necessity or unavoidable accident may be accepted upon payment of fine if the delay does not exceeds 4 months. (Section 25). (10)The executants, their representatives or agents authorized under the power-of-attorney would require to attend before the Registrar. (Section 32).
(11)The photographing and finger printing of the executant is compulsory. (Section 32A).
(12)A person may be represented by an authorised constituted attorney under a power-of-attorney. (Section 33).
(13)The executant may appear simultaneously or at different times. (Section 34(2).
(14) The Registering Authority would be entitled to inquire who executed (7) (901) WP 1966/12
the document and satisfy himself about the identity of the executant or his agent. (Section 34(3).
(15)The persons attending or their agents would be required to admit execution. (Section 35 (1) & (2).
(16) Only if the person attending denies execution, is seen to be a minor, idiot or a lunatic or is dead and the representative denies its execution, the Registering Authority is empowered to refuse registration of the document of the persons so denying, appearing or dead. (Section 35(3).
9. In this case the Registering Authority has persisted in refusing to register the document on the ground that the title of the vendor has not been shown. It is only the Civil Court which would consider the title. There is nothing in the Registration Act or the Registration Manual to empower the Registrar in seeing or satisfying himself about the title of the vendor. Hence registration entails nothing more than the factum that the executants or their agents attended before the Registrar and admitted the execution of the document.
10. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there are many instances where the parties without any title seek to transfer such purported title which they do not have and legitimize the illegal act by the process of registration. That may be the ground reality. The Registering Authority, being conscious of such a fact, may consider himself obliged to prevent transfers by such illegal acts. However the jurisprudential rule that none can transfer a better title than what he has is indeed as elementary as it is basic. The Registering Authority, therefore, need not be take open itself the duty of a Civil Court which alone would go into question of title upon it being challenged. The law in that behalf is clear. (8) (901) WP 1966/12
11. Counsel on behalf of the Registering Authority argued that the correspondence between the developer and the society was not produced before the Registering Authority. The completion and occupation certificates of the building were also not shown. One of the executants was not present and the provisions of various other statutes were not complied. The argument is completely misconceived. The impugned orders are passed on the basis that the vendor has no title. The judgments of the Court are merely enumerated in the impugned orders of the Collector and not heeded.
12. Consequently the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. Hence the rule is made absolute. The impugned orders dated 18.02.2012, 21.06.2012 Exhibits F & L to the petition are quashed and set aside. The Registering Authority shall register the Deed of Conveyance dated 9 th November, 2011 within 4 months from today when the parties to the conveyance present the documents for registration and admit the execution thereof. The time for registration is extended to that extent.
13. Since it was contended that the none was there to represent the vendor, the Court called upon the vendor's representative to remain present in Court. He has remained present and identified himself. His motor driving licence showing his photograph and signature is seen and returned. A photo copy of the identification is kept on record.
14. This order is stayed for 2 weeks.
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment