- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 20th June, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur in Title Appeal No. 33 of 1995 affirming the judgement and decree dated 30th March, 1995 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Durgapur in Title Suit No. 70 of 1993/92 of 1988 at the instance of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3/appellants. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. Plaintiff's suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property and for other incidental reliefs was decreed on contest by the learned Trial Court. The learned Appeal Court has also affirmed the said judgement and decree of the learned Trial Court. The instant appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of facts of the learned courts below.
(2.) Heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. Considered the materials on record including the judgements and decrees of the learned courts below. On perusal of the materials on record, we find that admittedly one Charubala Dasi was the owner of the suit property. Both the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are claiming title through the said Charubala Dasi. Charubala was a widow. She died without any issue. The plaintiff is the son of the brother-in-law of Charubala. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of the brother of Charubala. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired title in the suit property by virtue of a deed of gift executed by Charubala in his favour on 8th December, 1982. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are claiming title in the suit property by virtue of a deed of gift executed by Charubala in their favour on 13th October, 1982. The plaintiff has challenged the legality of the deed of gift allegedly executed by Charubala in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2. The defendant no.3 is the subsequent purchaser of the suit property from the defendant nos. 1 and 2. Both the courts below held that the deed of gift executed by Charubala in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 on 13th October, 1982 was illegal and invalid. Both the courts below found that the said deed of gift was not executed by Charubala. Both the courts below also found that the registration of the said document was not made by following the provisions of the Registration Act. Even the stamp papers on which the deed of gift was transcribed were not purchased either in the name of the donor or in the name of the donee. The deed of gift was not even presented before the Registering Authority for its registration by the donor. The Registering Authority has also endorsed in the deed that the executrix left the registration office before putting her L.T.I. on the deed of gift. These are the finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below to support their respective conclusion about the invalidity of the said deed of gift.
(3.) The learned first Appellate Court, however, added an additional ground to support his conclusion. The learned first Appellate Court held that the stamp papers of the said deed of gift dated 13th October, 1982 were purchased on 21st June, 1982 and the same was registered on 7th March, 1983. Since the registration was not completed within four months from the date of purchase of the stamp papers, the learned first Appellate Court held that the registration of the said deed of gift was invalid. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3/appellants has challenged the correctness of this part of the finding of the learned first Appellate Court very seriously and invited this Court to admit this appeal for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. We agree with the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that this part of the finding of the learned first Appellate Court cannot be supported in view of the provisions of the Registration Act. Still then, we are unable to come to a conclusion different from the conclusions drawn by both the courts below, firstly for the concurrent finding of facts as mentioned above and lastly for the relevant provisions of the Registration Act with which we are presently concerned which are as follows :- "23. Time for presenting documents.- Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution: Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final. 25. Provision where delay in presentation is unavoidable.- (1) If, owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, any document executed, or copy of a decree or order made, in India is not presented for registration till after the expiration of the time hereinbefore prescribed in that behalf, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in presentation does not exceed four months, may direct that, on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, such document shall be accepted for registration. (2) Any application for such direction may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate." Section 23 makes it clear that a document which is required to be registered as per the Registration Act is required to be purchased before the Registering Authority within four months from the date of execution of the said document. However, under exceptional circumstances as contemplated under Section 25 of the said Act, extension of further period of four months can be granted subject to the penal provision as prescribed in Section 25 of the said Act. Here is the case, where we have already mentioned above that the disputed deed of gift being Exhibit-G was allegedly executed by Charubala on 13th October, 1982, but the same was presented for registration on 7th March, 1983 i.e. beyond four months from the date of execution of the said deed of gift. As such, registration of the said deed of gift was not in conformity with the provision of Section 23 of the said Act. No case has been made out that the Registration of the said deed of gift was completed as per Section 25 of the said Act. As such, we have no hesitation to hold that the disputed deed of gift being Exhibit-G through which the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are claiming title in the suit property is illegal and invalid. Thus, title of Charubala in the suit property cannot be held to have been validly conveyed by Charubala in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 through the said disputed deed of gift dated 13th October, 1982 being Exhibit-G. Since the defendant nos. 1 and 2 did not acquire any title in respect of the suit property through Charubala, the defendant no.3 also could not have acquired any title by virtue of his subsequent purchase of the suit property from the defendant nos. 1 and 2.;