Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.336 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Uma Devi, wife of Chandra Bali Prasad. 2. Gangakali Devi, D/o Chandra Bali Prasad. Both are residents of Village- Koery Tola, P.O. - Koeri Tola, P.S.- Barharia, District- Siwan. ....Plaintiffs…..Appellants .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Badri Prasad, son of Shiv Balak Prasad, resident of Village- Mananpur, P.S.- Barharia, District- Siwan, at present resident of Village- Hathigaon, P.O.- Sunari, P.S. Barharia, District- Siwan. 2. Shiv Bachan Mahto, son of late Tilak Mahto. 3. Nayan Prasad, son of late Jitu Prasad. Both are residents of Village- Mananpur, P.O. and P.S.- Barharia, District- Siwan. 4. Wakil Singh, son of late Shiv Gopal Singh, resident of Village- Hathigaon, P.O.- Sundari, P.S.- Barharia, District- Siwan. 5. Kapildeo Prasad, son of late Ram Charitra Prasad. 6. Sita Ram Prasad, son of late Ram Charitra Pd. 7. Mathura Prasad, son of late Mahavir Prasad. 8. Jamuna Prasad, son of late Jitu Prasad. 9. Banshidhar Prasad, son of Suraj Prasad. 10. Sunaina Devi, wife of late Keshwar Prasad. 11. Shambhu Prasad, son of late Keshwar Prasad. 12. Manager Prasad, son of late Rambriksha Singh. All are residents of Village- Mananpur, P.O. and P.S. - Barharia, District- Siwan.
Legal Reasoning
....Defendants…..Respondents .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dronacharya Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 8 27-08-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2009 and 7.5.2009 passed by Sri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Siwan in Title Appeal No.91 of 1984, whereby the Patna High Court SA No.336 of 2009 (8) dt.27-08-2013 2 learned appellate court below while dismissing the appeal has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1984/6.8.1984 passed by the learned 1st Munsif, Siwan in Title Suit No.37 of 1977 dismissing the suit. The plaintiff is thus before this Court in appeal. The facts of the case briefly stated is that a sale-deed is stated to have been executed by the defendant no.1, Most. Bigani Devi in favour of the plaintiff, Chandrabali Prasad Verma on 10.8.1973. Since the vendor Most. Bigani Devi refused to present herself for registration of the sale deed in terms of section 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), it led to filing of an application under the Act, for compulsory registration thereof on 18.12.1973. In absence of Most. Bigani Devi, the executor of the deed the Sub- Registrar, Barharia, district- Siwan refused to register the sale- deed dated 10.8.1973. Being aggrieved the plaintiff Chandrabali Prasad Verma filed a statutory appeal before the District Registrar giving rise to Registration Case no.6 of 1974 and which was also dismissed by the appellate authority under the Act on 29.1.1977. The refusal by the authorities under the Act led to filing of Title Suit No.37 of 1977 by the plaintiff seeking a direction for compulsory registration of the sale-deed dated Patna High Court SA No.336 of 2009 (8) dt.27-08-2013 3 10.8.1973 and for acceptance of its execution by the defendant no.1, Most Bigani Devi. In the alternative a prayer for decree of specific performance of contract was also made in the suit. The suit as well as the appeal preferred by the plaintiff having been dismissed and hence this appeal. Mr. Dronacharya has appeared for the appellant and with reference to a judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1954 Patna 556: 1955 BLJR 12 (Rajendra Singh vs. Ramganit Singh) it is submitted that the courts below have travelled beyond the scope of the provisions of section 77 of the Act which does not permit the court to enter into the intricacies of title, payment of consideration amount and the likes. He further submits that the defendant no.1, who is the executor of the deed neither appeared before the Registrar nor deposed before the trial court and thus in view of the judicial pronouncement reported in AIR 1962 Patna 168 (Bhola Ram Lieri vs. Peari Devi), the same would draw adverse inference against her. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have perused the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below. It is to be seen whether the appellant has made out a case in the light of the judicial pronouncement rendered in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra). The principles Patna High Court SA No.336 of 2009 (8) dt.27-08-2013 4 laid down in the judgment of Rajendra Singh (supra) are well- known enunciation of law and are not in contest. The question is, whether at all the said circumstance arises in the present appeal. Section 77 of the Act enables the person aggrieved to prefer a suit in case of refusal by the Registrar to register a document. Thus the issue posed before the court(s) below was whether the Sub-Registrar or the appellate authority under the Act had committed any illegality in refusing to register a document and whether the appellant was entitled to any relief. Section 75 of the Act empowers the Registrar to register any document provided the statutory requirements stands complied with. The issue is whether the statutory requirements for registration of the sale deed stood fulfilled in the present case. Admittedly the executor of the document Most Bigani Devi did not present herself either before the Registrar or before the trial court. Section 32 of the Act requires the persons executing or claiming under the same to be present at the time of registration. Admittedly this requirement of law was not satisfied in the present case and it is in these circumstances that the Sub- Registrar, Barharia refused to register the document and which order was affirmed by the appellate authority, i.e. the District Patna High Court SA No.336 of 2009 (8) dt.27-08-2013 5 Registrar on 29.1.1977. It is not the case of the appellant that the authorities under the Act has refused to register the document for want of title or on grounds of dispute in payment of consideration amount or the like, rather it is because the executor of the deed did not present herself for registration that the refusal followed. The circumstance set forth leaves no room for confusion that there was absolutely no legal infraction in the orders passed by the Sub-Registrar or the appellate authority under the Act which were put to question in the suit. In so far as the alternative prayer for specific performance is concerned, the trial court has taken notice of the circumstances prevailing and in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties the trial court while dealing Issue No.4 which was relatable to the sale deed dated 10.8.1973 has held that the thumb impression of Most Bigani had been obtained by practicing fraud and that the plaintiff cannot take advantage of such a forged and fabricated document. The conclusion drawn by the trial court on this issue has been affirmed in the appeal. There is thus concurrent findings of facts by the courts below on this issue and there is nothing to suggest that the findings are perverse. Although Mr. Dronacharya stressfully tried to contest Patna High Court SA No.336 of 2009 (8) dt.27-08-2013 6 the decree on the anvil of non-deposition of the executor but the said condition would not come to the aid of the appellant inasmuch as there has been conclusive findings of facts that the sale deed dated 10.8.1973 was a forged document. I am thus not persuaded to interfere with the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal. This appeal raising no substantial question of law, is dismissed accordingly. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)