- (1.) Petitioners Smt. Darpi, Chandra Bhan, Girijesh and Om Prakash have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.9.1996 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'ADM') holding execution of sale-deed in question by Sri Sadhoo (who died on 3.5.1993) valid and thus directing Sub-Registrar, Bansgaon to register the same by complying with Sections 56 to 61 of The Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The case, set-up in the writ petition is, that the sale-deed was presented in the office of Sub-Registrar on 3.5.1993 by respondent No. 3, purchaser of the property described in the sale-deed. The property belongs to one Sadhoo son of Mata Palat. While the office of Sub-Registrar was in the midst of completing formalities, Sadhoo felt uneasiness and left the office of Sub-Registrar. He died in evening on the same day. The Sub-Registrar thereafter declined to register the document. Respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 35 of the Act before A.D.M. On 11.7.1994, praying that the Sub-Registrar be directed to register the document. This application was opposed and contested by petitioners by filing objections on 19.8.1994. The petitioners disputed execution of sale-deed before Sub-Registrar. Appearance of late Sadhoo on 3.5.1993 before Sub-Registrar was also disputed. The Sub-Registrar submitted a report dated 11.7.1994 stating that execution had not been made in accordance with provisions of the Act and therefore, the document was rightly returned. He also said that the alleged execution is dated 3.5.1993, and more than eight months have passed, hence the document is not registrable being barred by limitation under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act. The respondent No. 1 thereafter has passed the impugned order.
(2.) The respondent No. 1 while allowing application of respondent No. 3, has observed that late Sadhoo got the sale-deed drafted from Sri Jitendra Bahadur Shahi, Advocate and placed his thumb impression thereon which was verified by two witnesses namely Surendra Pratap Singh son of Ram Murat Singh and Ram Vilas son of Baijnath Singh in the office of Sub-Registrar who also affixed his seal at the back of the first page of the document and completed all the columns. The said seal also contains signature of Sub-Registrar which he subsequently scored out. The A.D.M. also held that Ram Das was the real brother of Sadhoo and Dhurandhar-respondent No. 3 was his son. The respondent No. 3 had accepted execution of sale-deed, therefore, the Sub-Registrar ought to have registered the document in question.
(3.) In order to find out, what was the position of document and what formalities were completed, this Court vide order dated 5.2.2004 required respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the alleged sale-deed for perusal. The document was later on actually perused by the Court on 30.4.2004 and following observations were recorded: Sri S.P. Shukla, D.I.G. Registration, Gorakhpur and Sri Brij Lal Singh, Prabhari Sub Registrar are present before this Court. After looking into the original sale-deed, which has been produced before this Court, both Sri S.P. Shukla, D.I.G. Registration, Gorakhpur and Sri Brij Lal Singh, Prabhari Sub Registrar have stated that it is not necessary that the attesting witness should sign all the pages of the sale-deed. It is further stated that since attesting witness has signed on the first page of sale-deed, it is sufficient. Attesting witness is not required to attest the signature of executant on the pages. Sri Brij Lal Singh has not been able to explain as to what is the figures 14/1994 as mentioned on the left hand top corner of the first page of sale-deed suggest. It has further been specifically stated that Prapatra, which is necessary to be submitted with the sale-deed when presented for the registration, bears absolutely no signature nor any alteration has been done. It is stated that by mistake the sale-deed was accepted for registration without ensuring as to whether proforma was complete or not. Heard Sri K.P. Tiwari on behalf of the petitioner and Sri S.N. Tripathi on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Darpi daughter of late Sri Sadhoo against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (F & R) Gorakhpur in Case No. 7/94/96 dated 9.9.1996. By means of the said order dated 9.9.1996 the Additional District Magistrate (F & R) Gorakhpur, at the relevant time, has directed that the sale-deed, alleged to have been executed by Sri Sadhoo, presented for registration on 3.5.1993 before the Sub Registrar, Gorakhpur, be registered. It is not in dispute that Sri Sadhoo had expired on the same date i.e. 3rd May, 1993. This Court on 5th February, 2004 called for the original record pertaining to the sale-deed as presented for registration as also the report of the Sub Registrar submitted in respect of registration of the said sale-deed dated 11.7.1994. The original record has been produced before me today. From the original sale-deed, so produced, it is apparently clear that the proforma required to be submitted for registration of a document with the Sub Registrar, as has been enclosed, bears no signatures nor the date of presentation of the said proforma has been mentioned. It is completely blank so far as the verification part is concerned. Similarly, the sale-deed appears to bear thumb impression of Sadhoo in all pages. However, the identification of the thumb impression of Sadhoo has been done by one Sri Surendra Pratap Singh and one Sri Rambelas only on first page of the sale-deed and in no other page of the alleged sale-deed. It is further apparent from the record that absolutely no registration fee has been deposited in the Government Treasury with regards to registration of the said document. On the back of the first page of the sale-deed, signatures of Sub Registrar have been appended, However, subsequently the said signatures have been scribbled over without assigning any reason for the same. In the report submitted by the Sub Registrar dated 11.7.1994, it was specifically reported that the sale-deed is not fit for registration for want of reasons which have been mentioned in the report as well as noticed hereinabove. The Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur has, however, passed impugned order directing that the said sale-deed be registered under Section 56 of the Indian Registration Act. The reasons borne out from the aforesaid order is that Sri Dhurandhar son of Sri Ram Das, in whose favour alleged sale-deed is alleged to have been executed, had admitted the execution of the sale-deed. In the circumstances stated above, before any decision can be taken with regards to the illegality or otherwise of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), it is necessary that an enquiry be conducted by the I.G. Registration U.P. with regards to the said sale-deed being fit for registration or not and as to whether in absence of any money (registration fee) having been deposited the Sub Registrar was justified in making the endorsement at the back of the page and in signing the same (subsequently scribbled). The I.G. Registration shall also submit his report with regards to requirement of the signatures of the attesting witness on every page of the sale-deed. The I.G. Registration shall conduct a detailed enquiry specifically with regards to role played by the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur at the relevant time in passing the order dated 9.9.1996. The I.G. Registration is directed to submit his report in respect of the aforesaid matter within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is forwarded to him by the Registrar of this Court. The report must reach this Court on or before the date fixed in the matter i.e. 12th July, 2004. List on 12th July, 2004 as part heard. The original record produced today may be forwarded to the I.G. Registration by the Registrar General of this Court alongwith the copy of the order passed today for necessary action within one week. The copy of this order may also be supplied to the Standing Counsel so as to communicate the same to I.G. Registration for necessary action. The original record may be transmitted to Registrar General to be forward to the I .G Registration for the purposes of submitting report referred to above. Sri S.P. Shukla, DIG. Registration, Gorakhpur and Sri Brij Lal Singh, Prabhari Sub Registrar, present in person, are not required to be present on future dates.;