PARASNATH SINGH Vs. THE DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a document can be presented for registration by a person other than the executant under Sec. 32 of the Registration Act is the significant question has necessitating this reference to the Division Bench. The case set up by respondent no. 2 Ram Mishra, was that the petitioner Parasnath Singh, being in urgent need of money, has executed an agreement to sell 81 decimals of land for a consideration of Rs. 15000/ - on the 1st of July, 1977. Thereunder he received Rs. 1250/ - as an advance and had firmly promised to execute the deed of sale after obtaining permission from the Consolidation authority. Subsequently after securing permission from the Chakbandi officer for selling his land five sale deeds scribed by Matiur Rahman was duly executed on the 28th of August, 1977 at Lalganj. The contents of these sale deeds were read over and well understood by the petitioner and there after he had appended his signature and thumb impression on each of the documents after which the witnesses attested the same. As it was very late in the day, the documents were not presented before the Sub -Registrar, Lalganj, for admission of execution and on the request of the petitioner the balance of the consideration money of Rs. 13750/ - was paid to him on the condition that on the following day he would admit the execution of the documents and get them duly registered. The said documents were delivered over to respondents no. 2 but thereafter inspite of the promises made the petitioner did not turn up in - the registry office at Lalganj for admission of execution of the sale deeds.

(2.) Respondent no. 2 thereafter presented the five sale deeds in the court of the District sub -Registrar, Vaishali, Hajipur, for securing the appearance of the petitioner and to initiate proceeding under Sec. 36 of the Indian Registration Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.) Accordingly summonses were issued and served on the petitioner but he failed to appear on the date fixed and hence the cases were converted under Sec. 44 of the Act. The petitioner thereafter appeared and contested all the five cases. In his written statement he took up the plea that he neither executed the sale deeds is question nor received any consideration money. It was alleged that respondent no. 2 had prevailed on him to come to the house of Matiur Rahman, the said house and subsequently under threats and duress obtained his thumb impression and signature on a number of blank stamped papers, etc. These were later converted into the agreement to sell and the sale deeds.

(3.) In support of his case, respondent no. 2, apart from stepping into the witness box himself examined five more witnesses. On the other hand, the petitioner examined himself and two more witnesses is support of his case. On a close appraisal of the evidence, the District sub -Registrar arrived at a firm conclusion that the petitioner has put his signatures and affixed his thumb impressions with full awareness of the contents of the documents. Holding that the requirements of Sec. 74 of the Act were satisfied, he ordered the registration of all the five documents under Sec. 75 thereof.