Authority Under Registration Act Not Civil Court, Can't Issue Summons Or Examine Witnesses: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that the power conferred on the registering officer under the Registration Act is fundamentally to enable him to satisfy himself about the identity of the person who has presented the document and enquire with him as to whether he has executed the document so presented by him and this power cannot be enlarged by examining the witnesses, scribe etc. A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said, "If it is held that Registering Officer has the power to summon an executant and enquire from him as to whether he had in fact executed the document or not, that would essentially mean that the registering officer was being clothed with the power to enforce the registration of a document in the same manner as is available to a Civil Court. That is, obviously, impermissible and amounts to conferring the powers of a Civil Court to enforce a contract on the registering officer." Further the court clarified that, "If an executant does not appear voluntarily and does not admit execution of a sale deed relating to an immovable property, the registering officer cannot summon the executant to ascertain whether the sale deed was indeed executed or not." It added, "In fact, in such cases, it would be a case of an invalid presentation of the sale deed and such an invalidly presented sale deed cannot be ordered to be registered. Further it said ,"The remedy contemplated under Section 73 of the Registration Act to the Registrar would be unavailable and even if such a remedy is invoked, the Registrar cannot hold an enquiry to determine whether the executant admitted the execution of the sale deed and order its registration." Case Background: The case pertains to a dispute between the Respondents (R.Chennaveeramma and R.Bhagirathamma), who claimed title over the suit property by way of a will executed by their father (C. Rudraiah), and the Appellant (Y. Chikkanna), who claimed to have purchased the said property from Respondents' father.The Trial Court after considering the evidence, concluded that the Respondents (original plaintiffs) had proved that they were in possession of the suit property and their possession was interfered with by the Respondent. It however held that the Respondents were unable to prove that the sale deed executed in favour of the Appellant was void and was not binding on them. As against the refusal to declare that they were the owners of the house property and that the sale deed obtained by the Appellant was null and void, the Respondents had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court decreed the suit filed by Respondents in its entirety and declared them to be the owners in possession of the suit property. It also declared that the sale deed obtained by the Appellant was null and void. The Appellate Court also set aside the decree of possession granted in favour of the Appellant. Hence, the present appeal was filed before the High Court. Court findings: Firstly then bench noted that the Respondents' father was yet to acquire absolute title over the house property (obtained on lease-cum-sale) when he had executed the title and thus, this view of the Appellate Court that the title could not have passed to Appellant on the basis of such a sale deed, cannot be found fault with. As regards the Housing Board had executed a sale deed in favour of Respondents by virtue of them being the legal heirs of Rudraiah, the bench said ,"It will have to be stated here that Chikkanna cannot seek benefit available under Section 43, because under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is only if a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer the immovable property and transfers it for consideration, the purchaser would get the benefit of any interest that the transferor may acquire subsequently." It then held, "The Appellate Court was therefore justified in concluding that Rudraiah had no title to convey the house on 03.05.1979 and the basis of Chikkanna's claim of acquiring title was itself untenable, notwithstanding the registration of the sale deed." Duties of Registering Authority. The court also in detail discussed the duties of the Registering Authority. It said, "The registration of a document under the Registration Act, 1908 envisages three stages. The first stage is the time of presentation of a document, which is governed by the provisions of Part IV of the said Act. The second stage is the place of registration, which is governed by the provisions of Part V of the said Act and the third stage is the presenting of documents for registration, which is governed by the provisions of Part VI of the said Act." The Court noted that from a combined reading of Section 34 and Section 35 of the Registration Act, there is no doubt that a document cannot be registered unless the executant personally appears and thereafter establishes his identity to...

Authority Under Registration Act Not Civil Court, Can't Issue Summons Or Examine Witnesses: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags