# Dharam Raj v. Distt. Registrar Gonda

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2245
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-06
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1001137 of 1993
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharam-raj-v-distt-registrar-gonda-52059
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-District
Registrar's
order
directing Sub-Registrar to register and
agreement-under
challenge-
Sections
35(3), 36 & 71(1) of the registration Act,
1908-Enquiry required to be conducted by
the registering officer before registration
of a document-Section 34 of the
Registration Act-if conditions laid down
satisfied-document will be registered as
directed in Sections 58 to 61 of the ActSection 58 of the Act-particulars to be
endorsed on documents admitted to
registration-Section
59
of
the
ActRegistrar
shall
authorise
date
and
signature to all the endorsements made by
him-Section 60 of the Act-provision for
issuance of certificate of registration-no
statutory provision in the Act-requires the
Sub-Registrar/Registrar to ascertain the
capacity of the executant to execute the
document by satisfying himself that the
executant holds a valid title in respect of
the property in question- Rule 300 of
Rules framed under the Act-Registrar to
satisfy himself that the person presenting
it has legal authority to do so i.e. to
present
the
document-Appeal
under
Sections 72 and 73 of the Act-mere
mentioning of wrong provision not fatal to
proceedings-Rule 364 framed under the
Registration Act, 1908-Registar has dealt
with the issues properly-impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality-petition
dismissed. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 25
& 26)

HELD:
A bare perusal of Section 34 of Registration Act
would indicate that Registrar is merely required
to satisfy himself that the persons executing the
document or their representatives, assignees or
authorized agents have appeared before him
within the time allowed for presentation. He has
to enquire whether the executant is admitting
execution of the document and whether the
2246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
person appearing before him is the same
person, who is executant of the document. If the
executant of the document admits execution
thereof and the Sub-registrar is satisfied about
the identity of the executant, he will register the
document as directed in Section 58 to 61 of the
Act. (Para 13)

Section 58 of the Registration Act contains
particulars to be endorsed on documents
admitted to registration, which include the
signatures of every person admitting the
execution of document, signatures of persons
examined in reference to the document and any
admission of receipt of consideration. Section 59
mandates that the Registrar shall authorize the
date and his signature to all the endorsements
made by him. Section 60 contains provision for
issuance of certificate of registration. There is no
statutory provision contained in the Registration
Act which requires the Sub-Registrar/Registrar
to ascertain the capacity of the executant to
execute the document by satisfying himself that
the executant holds a valid title in respect of the
property in question. (Para 15)

A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule indicates
that it requires the Registrar to satisfy himself
that the person presenting it has legal authority
to do so i.e. to present the document. The legal
authority to present a document can by no
stretch of imagination be read as legal authority
to execute the document as the execution of a
document and presentation of a document for
its registration are two different and distinct
things. Therefore, Rule 300 also does not
require the Sub Registrar to satisfy himself
regarding title of the executant of an agreement
to sale by examining as to whether he holds title
of the property in question. (Para 16)

The registrar has examined this aspect of the
matter and held that the Sub-Registrar has erred
in mentioning denial under Section 35 (3) (a) of
the Act in the impugned order and the mention
of wrong provision by the Sub-Registrar created
a confusion in the mind of the concerned parties
whether he should file an appeal under Section
72 of the Act or an application under Section 73
of the Act. The Registrar found that an appeal
under Section 72 of the Act

## Text

5 All. Dharam Raj Vs. Distt. Registrar Gonda
2245
against the Malvika Steels Ltd. and it can
neither be impleaded nor be substituted in
the execution proceedings.

28. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the impugned order dated
20.08.2009 passed by the District Judge,
Lucknow, in Execution Case No.22/2006
ordering substitution of the petitioner in
place of judgment debtor Malvika Steels
Ltd. is unsustainable in law.

29. As the order dated 20.08.2009 has
been held to be unsustainable in law, there
is no need to examine the legality of the
subsequent order dated 02.01.2010, passed
by the learned District Judge, Lucknow
rejecting the application for recall of the
order dated 20.08.2009.

30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
is allowed and the impugned order dated
20.08.2009 passed by the District Judge,
Lucknow, in Execution Case No.22/2006
ordering substitution of the petitioner in
place of judgment debtor Malvika Steels
Ltd., is quashed.

31. The parties to bear their own
costs of the litigation.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2245
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ - C No. 1001137 of 1993

Dharam Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
Distt. Registrar Gonda ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Arif Khan, Mohammad Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.P. Shukla, Dhirendra Kr. Dubey, Hemant
Kumar Mishra, Kapil Muni Dubey, R.P.
Shukla, S.C. Kashish, Udai Bhan Pandey

Civil
Law
-District
Registrar's
order
directing Sub-Registrar to register and
agreement-under
challenge-
Sections
35(3), 36 & 71(1) of the registration Act,
1908-Enquiry required to be conducted by
the registering officer before registration
of a document-Section 34 of the
Registration Act-if conditions laid down
satisfied-document will be registered as
directed in Sections 58 to 61 of the ActSection 58 of the Act-particulars to be
endorsed on documents admitted to
registration-Section
59
of
the
ActRegistrar
shall
authorise
date
and
signature to all the endorsements made by
him-Section 60 of the Act-provision for
issuance of certificate of registration-no
statutory provision in the Act-requires the
Sub-Registrar/Registrar to ascertain the
capacity of the executant to execute the
document by satisfying himself that the
executant holds a valid title in respect of
the property in question- Rule 300 of
Rules framed under the Act-Registrar to
satisfy himself that the person presenting
it has legal authority to do so i.e. to
present
the
document-Appeal
under
Sections 72 and 73 of the Act-mere
mentioning of wrong provision not fatal to
proceedings-Rule 364 framed under the
Registration Act, 1908-Registar has dealt
with the issues properly-impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality-petition
dismissed. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 25
& 26)

HELD:
A bare perusal of Section 34 of Registration Act
would indicate that Registrar is merely required
to satisfy himself that the persons executing the
document or their representatives, assignees or
authorized agents have appeared before him
within the time allowed for presentation. He has
to enquire whether the executant is admitting
execution of the document and whether the
2246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
person appearing before him is the same
person, who is executant of the document. If the
executant of the document admits execution
thereof and the Sub-registrar is satisfied about
the identity of the executant, he will register the
document as directed in Section 58 to 61 of the
Act. (Para 13)

Section 58 of the Registration Act contains
particulars to be endorsed on documents
admitted to registration, which include the
signatures of every person admitting the
execution of document, signatures of persons
examined in reference to the document and any
admission of receipt of consideration. Section 59
mandates that the Registrar shall authorize the
date and his signature to all the endorsements
made by him. Section 60 contains provision for
issuance of certificate of registration. There is no
statutory provision contained in the Registration
Act which requires the Sub-Registrar/Registrar
to ascertain the capacity of the executant to
execute the document by satisfying himself that
the executant holds a valid title in respect of the
property in question. (Para 15)

A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule indicates
that it requires the Registrar to satisfy himself
that the person presenting it has legal authority
to do so i.e. to present the document. The legal
authority to present a document can by no
stretch of imagination be read as legal authority
to execute the document as the execution of a
document and presentation of a document for
its registration are two different and distinct
things. Therefore, Rule 300 also does not
require the Sub Registrar to satisfy himself
regarding title of the executant of an agreement
to sale by examining as to whether he holds title
of the property in question. (Para 16)

The registrar has examined this aspect of the
matter and held that the Sub-Registrar has erred
in mentioning denial under Section 35 (3) (a) of
the Act in the impugned order and the mention
of wrong provision by the Sub-Registrar created
a confusion in the mind of the concerned parties
whether he should file an appeal under Section
72 of the Act or an application under Section 73
of the Act. The Registrar found that an appeal
under Section 72 of the Act ought to have been
filed, yet as the application had been filed under
Section 73 of the Act, it would not be proper to
leave the dispute undecided on this ground and
he rejected the objection raised in this regard.
(Para 25)

There appears to be no illegality in the approach
of the Registrar in deciding the dispute on merits
in spite of mention of a wrong provision when
under both the provisions, the jurisdiction
vested with the registrar and no prejudice has
been caused to any party by the mere mention
of a wrong provision under which the appeal /
application was filed. (Para 26)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hussein Abdul Rehman & Co. Vs Lakmichand
Khetsey: AIR 1925 Bombay 34

2. Savitri Devi & ors. Vs Surendra Mohan
Mohana: 1987 Vol 5 LCD 137

3. Mt. Gulab Devi Vs Monji Ram: AIR 1919
Lahore 156

4. Hoosein Abdul Rehman Vs Lakelmichand
Khetsey: AIR 1925 Bombay 34

5. Savitri Devi & ors. Vs Surendra Mohan
Mohana: 1987 Vol 5 LCD 137

6. Mt. Gulab Devi Vs Monji Ram: AIR 1919
Lahore 156

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Arif Khan
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Sri
Mohammad Aslam Khan Advocate, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. K.
Khare, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State and Sri Kapil Muni
Dubey, the learned counsel for the
contesting private opposite parties.

2. By means of the instant writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner has
sought issuance of a writ in the nature of
5 All. Dharam Raj Vs. Distt. Registrar Gonda
2247
certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
03.05.1993,
passed
by
the
District
Registrar,
whereby
an
order
dated
15.03.1989, passed by the Sub-Registrar,
Gonda has been set aside and the SubRegistrar has been directed to register an
agreement dated 15.11.1988 executed by
the opposite party no.2-Radha Mohan, in
favour of deceased opposite party no.3Ladla agreeing to sell a piece of land
bearing Gata No.107/1-78 and 2-00 acre
out of Gata No.195/3-00 which was
presented for registration on 15.11.1988.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are
that the opposite party no.2 was the
Bhumidhar of Plot No.195 area 2.16 acres,
Plot No.107 area 1.78 acres, Plot No.195
area 3.00 acres and Plot No.47-Dha area
0.40 acres, situated in Village Amdohwa,
Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda. On
07.03.1989 he executed a sale deed in
respect of Plot No.107 in favour of the
petitioner no.1 and on 31.03.1989 he
executed another sale deed in respect of
0.40 acre land out of Plot No.195 in favour
of the petitioner no.2. On 13.11.1990 he
executed yet another sale deed in respect of
Plot No. 195 and 47-Dha in favour of the
petitioner nos.3 to 5. Meanwhile, on
09.03.1989, the opposite party no.3 and 4
presented an agreement dated 15.11.1988
executed by the opposite party no.2 in their
favour agreeing to sell Plot Nos.107 and
195, for being registered under Section 36
of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar
issued notice to the opposite party no.2.

4. On 15.03.1989, the Sub-Registrar
passed an order stating that as there was a
strike going on, summon was sent through
registered post, fixing 14.03.1989 as the
date
of
appearance.
However,
the
acknowledgment of service of summon had
not been received back. The Sub-Registrar
held that as the limitation for registration of
the deed had expired and no time was left
for issuing fresh summons, registration was
refused under Section 35 (3) read with
Section 71 (1) of Registration Act.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
the opposite party no.3 filed Case No.7/89,
under Section 73 of Registration Act before
the District Registrar, Gonda, which was
allowed by means of the impugned order
dated 03.05.1993. The Registrar has
recorded in the aforesaid order that on
09.03.1989 the deceased opposite party
no.2 - Ladla Prasad had produced before
the Sub-Registrar, Gonda an agreement
executed on 15.11.1988 by Radha Mohan
(the opposite party no.2) to sell the land
bearing Gata No.107/1.78 acres and 2 acres
land out of Gata No.195/3-00 in favour of
Ladla Prasad and Girwar Dayal (opposite
parties no.3 and 4), for being registered
under Section 36 of Registration Act. The
executant of the agreement Radha Mohan
had not presented himself for registration of
the document before the Sub-Registrar
Gonda. Upon production of document by
the applicant, the Sub-Registrar, Gonda had
issued notice to the executant Radha
Mohan through registered post, which was
not received back and the Sub-Registrar
refused to register the agreement on
15.03.1989. It has been stated in the
application under Section 73 of the
Registration Act that they had entered into
an agreement to purchase the land in
dispute from Radha Mohan for a sale
consideration of Rs.52,000/, out of which
Rs.43,000/- had been paid by him and the
remaining amount was agreed to be paid at
the time of execution of the sale deed. The
agreement had been prepared, the seller had
put his thumb impression on it and the
marginal witnesses had also put their
respective signatures. The seller had got
2248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prepared his two photographs and had
attached the same with the document, but
thereafter he abstained from appearing for
registration of the agreement. It was
contended before the Registrar that the
Sub-Registrar
has
erred
in
refusing
registration of the documents by means of
the order dated 15.03.1989 and it was
prayed that the order dated 15.03.1989 be
set aside and the Sub-Registrar, Gonda be
directed to register the agreement for sale
of the property.

6. The opposite party no.2 Radha
Mohan filed his objections inter alia stating
that all the narrations made in the
agreement to sell the property, including
the payment of advance money, were false.
The signatures were obtained on the
agreement deceitfully and, therefore, he did
not appear for its registration and he had
given complaints to the District Magistrate
and to the Superintendent of Police through
registered post. He has further stated that he
had already executed a sale deed dated
07.03.1989 in favour of Dharam Raj (the
petitioner no.1) in respect of the land
bearing Gata No.107/1.78 acre. He further
stated that he has executed another sale
deed in respect of four bigha land forming
a part of Gata No.195 in favour of
Choutkau (the petitioner no.2). Another
objection raised was that instead of filing an
application under Section 73 of the
Registration Act, an appeal under Section
72 of the aforesaid Act ought to have been
filed. Dharam Raj and Choutkau also filed
their objections. However, later on the
deceased opposite party no.2-Radha Mohan
and opposite party no.3-Ladla Prasad filed
a compromise was on 01.11.1991, wherein
Radha Mohan admitted to have executed
the agreement to sell and he agreed for
registration of the agreement.

7. The Registrar found that when the
executant Radha Mohan did not appear for
registration of the document, it cannot be
said that the executant had denied
execution of the sale deed and the SubRegistrar has erred in mentioning denial
under Section 35 (3) (a) of the Act in the
impugned order; that the mention of wrong
provision by the Sub-Registrar created a
confusion in the mind of the concerned
parties whether he should file an appeal
under Section 72 of the Act or an
application under Section 73 of the Act.
The Registrar found that an appeal under
Section 72 of the Act ought to have been
filed, yet as the application had been filed
under Section 73 of the Act, it would not be
proper to leave the dispute undecided on
this ground and he rejected the objection
raised in this regard.

8. The Registrar found that although
Radha Mohan had initially stated that the
agreement to sell had been obtained
deceitfully but later on he admitted that he
had executed the agreement and in these
circumstances, no question can be put
against legality of execution of the
agreement at this stage. While proceeding
under Section 74 of the Registration Act,
the District Registrar has to enquire
whether the deeds were executed or not and
whether the applicant has complied with
the requirements of law, making out a case
for registration of the documents. As the
executant of the agreement Radha Mohan
has admitted that he has executed the
agreement
and
had
requested
for
registration of the agreement, there was no
option except for registering the deed.
Accordingly, the Registrar allowed the
application and set aside the order dated
15.07.1989 passed by the Sub-Registrar,
Gonda and directed the Sub-Registrar to
5 All. Dharam Raj Vs. Distt. Registrar Gonda
2249
register the agreement in case the same was
presented before him within time.

9. While assailing the validity of the
aforesaid order, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Mohammad Arif Khan
Senior Advocate submitted that when the
seller had already executed three sale deeds
in respect of the property in question, he
had no authority to enter into an agreement
to sell the same land and, therefore, the
agreement executed by him could not have
been registered. He has further submitted
that as the Sub-Registrar/Registrar has no
power to cancel the sale deeds, he could not
have registered the agreement to sell in
spite of existence of the sale deeds in
respect of the same property in favour of the
petitioner.

10. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that Rule 300 of Rules under the
Registration Act, 1908 (as applicable in the
Uttar Pradesh) makes it obligatory for the
Sub-Registrar to satisfy himself about the
competence of the executor to execute the
deed.

11. In support of his submissions, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of High Court of
Bombay in the case of Hussein Abdul
Rehman and company Vs. Lakmichand
Khetsey: AIR 1925 Bombay 34, Savitri
Devi and others Vs. Surendra Mohan
Mohana: 1987 Vol 5 LCD 137, Mt. Gulab
Devi Vs. Monji Ram: AIR 1919 Lahore
156.

12. The enquiry required to be
conducted by the registering officer before
registration of a document is provided
under Section 34 of the Registration Act,
which provides as follows:
 "34. Enquiry before registration
by registering officers:-(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 authorised 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 subsection (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 representative, assign or agent,
satisfy himself of the right of such person so to
appear.

(4) Any application for a direction
under the proviso to sub-section (1) may be
lodged with a SubRegistrar, who shall forthwith
forward it to the Registrar to whom he is
subordinate.

(5) Nothing in this section applies to
copies of decrees or orders."

13. A bare perusal of Section 34 of
Registration Act would indicate that
2250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Registrar is merely required to satisfy
himself that the persons executing the
document
or
their
representatives,
assignees or authorized agents have
appeared before him within the time
allowed for presentation. He has to enquire
whether
the
executant
is
admitting
execution of the document and whether the
person appearing before him is the same
person, who is executant of the document.
If the executant of the document admits
execution thereof and the Sub-registrar is
satisfied about the identity of the executant,
he will register the document as directed in
Section 58 to 61 of the Act.

14. Section 58 of the Registration Act
contains particulars to be endorsed on
documents admitted to registration, which
include the signatures of every person
admitting the execution of document,
signatures of persons examined in reference
to the document and any admission of
receipt of consideration. Section 59
mandates that the Registrar shall authorize
the date and his signature to all the
endorsements made by him. Section 60
contains
provision
for
issuance
of
certificate of registration. There is no
statutory provision contained in the
Registration Act which requires the SubRegistrar/Registrar to ascertain the capacity
of the executant to execute the document by
satisfying himself that the executant holds
a valid title in respect of the property in
question.

15. Rule 300 of Rules framed
under the Registration Act, 1908, reliance
on which has been placed by the learned
Counsel for the petition, reads as follows: -

"300. Parties entitled to present
documents
for
registration.
If
the
document be not open to any of the
objections set forth above, the registering
officer, before finally accepting it for
registration, should satisfy himself that the
person presenting it has legal authority to
do so. The persons who may present a
document
for
registration
are
the
flollowing :

(a) in the case of a will, the
testator, and after his death any person
claiming under it as executor otherwise ;

(b) in the case of an authority to
adopt, the donor, and after his death, the
donee or the adopted son ;

(c) in the case of a copy of a
decree or order, any person claiming under
the decree or order ; (d) in any other case,
any person executing or claiming under the
document ;

(e) the representative or assign of
any of the foregoing ;

(f) the agent of any of the
foregoing.

Note.
Where
the
Indian
Registration Act, 1908 or any rule made
thereunder, requires or permits any act to
be done with reference to a document by a
person executing or claiming under the
same and the document has been executed
on behalf of Municipal or District Board or
is a document under which a Municipal or
District Board claims, the act may,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in the aforesaid enactment or in
any rule thereunder, be done (1) in the case
of Municipal Board, by the Chairman, the
Executive Officer or a Secretary of the
Board, or by other officer of the Board
empowered by regulation in this behalf,
and (2) in the case of District Board, by the
Chairman, or by any other officer of the
Board empowered by regulation in this
behalf."

16. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
Rule indicates that it requires the Registrar
5 All. Dharam Raj Vs. Distt. Registrar Gonda
2251
to satisfy himself that the person presenting
it has legal authority to do so i.e. to present
the document. The legal authority to
present a document can by no stretch of
imagination be read as legal authority to
execute the document as the execution of a
document and presentation of a document
for its registration are two different and
distinct things. Therefore, Rule 300 also
does not require the Sub-Registrar to satisfy
himself regarding title of the executant of
an agreement to sale by examining as to
whether he holds title of the property in
question.

17. In support of his submissions, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of High Court of
Bombay in the case of Hoosein Abdul
Rehman v. Lakelmichand Khetsey: AIR
1925 Bombay 34, Savitri Devi and others
Vs. Surendra Mohan Mohana: 1987 Vol
5 LCD 137, Mt. Gulab Devi Vs. Monji
Ram: AIR 1919 Lahore 156.

18. In the case of Savitri Devi (Supra)
this issue was neither involved nor was
decided as to whether the Sub-Registrar is
required to satisfy himself regarding title of
the executant of a deed before registering
the same and, therefore, this judgment is
not relevant for decision of the present case.

19. The law down in the judgment
in the case of Mt. Gulab Devi (Supra) was
that a person who sets up a title to property by
purchase, must prove that his vendor has a
title in the property sold. In this case also the
question involved was not as to whether the
Sub-Registrar or the Registrar is obliged to
verify the title of the presentor of an
agreement to sell a property before
registering it. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Sub-Registrar was required to record a
satisfaction regarding title of the executant to
execute the sale deed and that he ought to
have declined registration of the document in
view of the fact that the petitioner had
obtained sale deed in respect of the land in
question in his favour is without any force of
law and same is turned down.

20. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has next submitted that the seller
already having sold the property in question
in his favour, the agreement to sale executed
in favour of the opposite party no.3 is void.
This question is not required to be decided in
this writ petition, which has been filed
challenging the validity of the order for
registration of agreement to sell. The learned
counsel for the contesting respondents has
submitted that a suit regarding title of the
parties is pending and these questions are left
open for being decided by the Civil Court, in
case the same are involved therein.

21. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has next submitted that the
Registrar himself has held that the the
registration of the agreement was refused on
the ground that the executant had not
appeared for registration of the document and
in these circumstances an appeal ought to
have been filed under Section 72 of the
Registration Act and Application under
Section 73 of the Act was not maintainable,
more particularly when the Registrar has
himself in the order that an appeal under
Section 72 of the Act ought to have been
filed.

22. Section 72 and 73 of the
Registration Act, 1908 provide as follows:
-

"72. Appeal to Registrar from
orders
of
Sub-Registrar
refusing
registration on ground other than denial
2252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of execution.-(1) Except where the
refusal is made on the ground of denial of
execution, an appeal shall lie against and
order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit
a document to registration (whether the
registration
of
such
document
is
compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to
whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate, if
presented to such Registrar within thirty
days from the date of the order; and the
Registrar may reverse or alter such order.

(2) ...

73. Application to Registrar
where Sub-Registrar refuses to register on
ground of denial of execution.-(1) When
a Sub-Registrar has refused to register a
document on the ground that any person by
whom it purports to be executed, or his
representative
or
assign,
denies
its
execution, any person claiming under such
document, or his representative, assign or
agent authorized as aforesaid, may, within
thirty days after the making of the order of
refusal, apply to the Registrar to whom
such Sub-Registrar is subordinate in order
to establish his right to have the document
registered."

(2) Such application shall be in
writing and shall be accompanied by a copy
of the reasons recorded under Section 71,
and the statements in the application shall
be verified by the applicant in manner
required by law for the verification of
plaints." (Emphasis added)

23. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 364
of Rules under the Registration Act, 1908
(as applicable in the Uttar Pradesh), which
reads as follows: -

"364. Appeals and applications
to the District Registrar under Sections 72
and 73 of the Registration Act.

When application is made to a
District Register to reverse the order of a
Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document
of the District Registrar should examine it
to See registration, 1 was made within time
i.e. 50 days after the date of the order and
secondly, whether it was of the nature of
application under Section 72. or of an
application under Section 73, if the
application be brought within time, and be
of the nature of an appeal under Section 72,
the District Register shall pass such orders
thereon as seem to him proper under the
circumstances. If it be made within time,
and be of the nature of an application under
Section 73, i.e. an application to establish a
right to have a document registered on
account of denial of execution, the District
Registrar
must
make
the
enquiries
prescribed in Section-74, and pass an order
accordingly. This is an obligation imposed
upon him by law, which he is not at liberty
to avoid by referring the applicant to a Civil
Court."

24. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the District
Registrar ought to have examined whether
the application was of the nature of
application under Section 72 or of an
application under Section 73.

25. The registrar has examined this
aspect of the matter and held that the SubRegistrar has erred in mentioning denial
under Section 35 (3) (a) of the Act in the
impugned order and the mention of wrong
provision by the Sub-Registrar created a
confusion in the mind of the concerned
parties whether he should file an appeal
under Section 72 of the Act or an
application under Section 73 of the Act.
The Registrar found that an appeal under
Section 72 of the Act ought to have been
filed, yet as the application had been filed
5 All. Man Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2253
under Section 73 of the Act, it would not be
proper to leave the dispute undecided on
this ground and he rejected the objection
raised in this regard.

26. There appears to be no illegality
in the approach of the Registrar in deciding
the dispute on merits in spite of mention of
a wrong provision when under both the
provisions, the jurisdiction vested with the
registrar and no prejudice has been caused
to any party by the mere mention of a
wrong provision under which the appeal /
application was filed.

27. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment in
the case of Hoosein Abdul Rehman v.
Lakelmichand Khetsey (Supra), in which
the following questions were involved: -

"The second issue in this suit is
whether the document should be ordered to
be
registered.
It
was
rejected
for
insufficient description under section 21 of
the Registration Act. The reasons for this
rejection are given in the Sub-Registrar's
orders of June 7, and August 13, 1923,
Exhibit F, and they are summarised in the
Registrar's order of September 25, 1923,
Exhibit H. He there says:-
* * *

The main question is whether this
view is correct, that is, whether the
property is not sufficiently described in
accordance with sections 21 and 22 of the
Indian Registration Act so that registration
of it was properly refused under section 21.
Before I proceed to discuss that point, I may
mention that Mr. Binning for the defendant
also seeks to support the Sub-Registrars
refusal to register under section 20 of the
Act, on the ground that the blank in the
document regarding the Port Trust number
has not been initialled by the executant....."

28. None of the aforesaid questions
are involved in the present case and,
therefore, Hoosein Abdul Rehman v.
Lakelmichand Khetsey (Supra), is no
relevant for decision of the present case.

29. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, I am of the opinion that the
impugned order does not suffer from any
illegality, warranting interference by this
court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The
writ petition lacks merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.

30. The parties to bear their own costs
of litigation.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3446 of 2023
Along With other connected cases

Man Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Vishnu Murti Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Sunil Choudhary

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164 & 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 352,
326-A/34 & 420 - Applications for Bail -
offence of Acid attack - due to reason that victim
who was working as Bank manager rejected
loan applications of accused persons - prompt
FIR - during investigation name of applicant and
other co-accused was came into light - some of