VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR versus THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (F/R) AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 10-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LR
v.
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (F/R)
AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 2929 of 2022)
MAY 10, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, A. S. BOPANNA
AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Registration Act, 1908:
ss. 35, 72, 73, 74 – Execution and registration of sale deed –
Agreement to sell certain land between the appellant and the second
respondent – Execution of sale deed by the appellant in favour of
second respondent, however, during registration of said sale deed,
the appellant denied its execution – However, no denial on the part
of the appellant in signing the sale deed and having placed her
thumb impressions/fingerprints on the documents – Appellant also
asserted commission of fraud and undue influence by the second
respondent – Refusal of registration of the sale deed by the Sb-
registrar in terms of s. 35(3)(a) – However, in appeal u/s. 72, the
District Registrar ordered registration of the sale deed – Said order
upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: Sub-Registrar having
specifically denied registration in terms of s. 35(3)(a), the order
was not amenable to an appeal u/s. 72, however, the Registrar, in
the course of entertaining the appeal, instead took recourse to the
powers entrusted u/s. 73 – Mis-labelling of an application u/s. 73
as an appeal u/s. 72 would by itself not vitiate the proceedings
before the Registrar – Execution happens when a person’s signature
on the document is accompanied by their full consent to the contents
of the document, which they have understood before signing it –
“Execution” of a document does not stand admitted merely because
a person admits to having signed the document – Thus, admission
of one’s signature on a document is not equivalent to admission of
its execution – High Court conflated the mere signing of the sale
deed with its execution – Such an approach is completely erroneous
and cannot be upheld – Thus, the order of the Single Judge of the
High Court and that of the District Registrar set aside.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 736
736
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
737
ss. 35, 72-77 – Power of the Sub-Registrar/Registrar and their
procedures under – Explained.
Words and phrases: Expression ‘execution’ – Meaning of, in
context of the Registration Act, 1908.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the objections filed before the Sub-
Registrar by the appellant, it is clear that she did not deny having
signed the sale deed. The essence of her grievance was that her
signatures were taken forcibly; the sale deed did not reflect the
intent of the parties in terms of the area which was intended to
be sold; the sale consideration was undervalued; the consequence
of the sale deed was that even the residential house of the
appellant would be sold, contrary to her understanding; and the
sale deed had been procured by fraud. The order of the Sub-
Registrar makes it abundantly clear that the appellant was not
ready to register the sale deed, which was claimed to have been
executed in a fraudulent manner and whose execution was thus
being denied. Registration was, therefore, refused by the Sub-
Registrar in terms of Section 35(3)(a) of the Registration Act.
[Para 32][765-A-C]
1.2 If a person by whom the document is purported to be
executed denies its execution and registration is refused on those
grounds, an appeal against the order of the Sub-Registrar denying
execution would not be maintainable under Section 72 of the
Registration Act. Section 72 clearly stipulates that an appeal will
lie against an order of Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document
to registration “except where the refusal is made on the ground
of denial of execution”. [Para 33][765-C-E]
1.3 In the instant case, the Sub-Registrar having specifically
denied registration in terms of Section 35(3)(a), the order was
not amenable to an appeal under Section 72. However, the
Registrar, in the course of entertaining the appeal, instead took
recourse to the powers entrusted under Section 73. Section 73
empowers the Registrar where the Sub-Registrar has refused to
register a document on denial of its execution by a person
purporting to have executed it. Subsequently, the Registrar
VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THR. LR v. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDL.
COLLECTOR (F/R)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
appears to have followed the procedure which is emphasized in
Section 74. Upon such an enquiry under Section 74, Section 75
enables the Registrar 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.