LexNAREN CHANDRA NASKAR versus ARUN BHATTACHARYA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)
~
_,
-1
-t
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 969
NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR
v
ARUN BHATTACHARYA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5820 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
Deeds and Documents: Genuineness of Sale Deed -
Registration of two Sale Deeds in respect of different proper-
A
. B
. ties - Both the Vendees claiming to be in peaceful posses- c
sion of their respective properties-:- Registration details of both
Deeds identical - Initiation of criminal case against one of
the vendees (appellant) at the instance of District Registrar-
Another vendee (respondent) filing writ petition alleging forg-
ery - Division Bench of High Court directing to hold enquiry 0
· as to genuineness of both the Sale Deeds - The District Reg-
istrar holding enquiry only in respect of Deed of the -respon-
dent and holding it genuine - On appeal; held:._Direetion by
High court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the ·
Constitution to hold enquiry cannot be questioned - However,
enquiry by the officer at whose instance criminal proceedings E ·
were initiated is not_ correct - Examination of genuineness of ·,
the document of appellant as well as respondent was required
·
- Finding as to genuineness of document of respondent· is
confirmed - Direction to Inspector General of Registration to
conduct a separate enquiry as to ascertain genuineness of F
appellant's document - If found genuine, mistake in number-
ing the documents be rectified - Otherwise ac{/Qn to be taken
accordingly- Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226:::. Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 23 r. 1 - Registration Act, 1908
- Enquiry into genuineness of Sale Deed - Administrative G
Law-Bias.
Two Sale Deeds in respect of two different plots of
land were registered respectively by appellant as well as
969
H
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S. C.R.
A respondent No. 1. However, both the Sale Deeds were
having identical registratiOii details. Both appellant as well
as respondent No. 1 stated to be in undisturbed posses-
sion of their respective lands. A criminal.case u/s 471/420
IPC against the appellant was initiated at the instance of
B District Registrar in view of the above and because the
sale Deed of respondent No. 1 was not traceable in the
records. of the office.·
· Respondent No; 1 also filed a writ petition alleging
. that the Deed of the appellant was forged. He sought di-
e rection to the authorities concerned to remove the Deed
of the appellant from the records and restore its Deed in
its place and to ll_r.oceed against the culprits in accordance
. with.law. Single Judge of High Court disposed of the same
holding that since investigation in the case was on, no
D further order was required. In intra-court appeal, Division
Bench of High Court directed the District Registrar to con-
. duct an enquiry as to genuineness of the respective docu-
ments of the appellant and respondent No. 1. Conse-
quently, on holding of enquiry, document of respondent
E .. No. 1 was found genuine. ·
. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that
in absence of power under Registration Act to the Officer
concerned, he could not have conducted the enquiry; that
. since the suit filed on behalf of daughter of appellant's
F vendor against him claiming title of the property in ques-
. tio"n was dismissed, no futher direction could have been
given by the writ court to conduct enquiry into the genu-
ineness of appellant's Deed; that the District Registrar · .
was required to consider genuineness of the documents
G of both the appellant as well as respondent No. 1; and
that inquiry by the officer, who rriade a complaint against
·. the appellant was prejudiced.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
H
HELD: 1. The enquiry conducted by the District Reg-
. '. )--·
. .j
)
NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN
971
BHATTACHARYA & ORS.
istrar under the directions of the High C9urt in exercise A
,..
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can-
,,..
not be called into question on the ground that the Regis-
tration Act did not provide for-such enquiry to be con-
--!
ducted by the of(iCer concerned. Therefore, the finding
of the District Registrar that the Sale Deed executed in
B
favour of the respondent No.1 had been correctly num-
bered as Deed No. 3203 of 1989 and correctly entered in
Book No.1, Volume No.75 and that in terms of the order
passed by the High Court, a copy of the same is requExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.