Alok Singh, J.@mdashPresent second appeal is filed by the plaintiff-appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1987 passed by learned First Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Jalandhar thereby allowing the first appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that Beant Singh father of defendants No. 1, 2 and husband of defendant No. 3 was the owner in possession of the property in dispute; Beant Singh alienated the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 7.7.1965 in favour of Gurbax Singh father of the plaintiff; father of the plaintiff i.e. Gurbax Singh died in the year 1966; that is why he could not get mutation done in his favour pursuant to sale deed dated 7.7.1965; after death of Beant Singh defendants No. 1 and 2 acting as Lrs of Beant Singh once again alienated the property in favour of defendant No. 4 vide sale deed dated 21.4.1981; defendant No. 4 tried to dispossess the plaintiff pursuant to the Sale Deed dated 21.4.1981; plaintiff reported the matter to the police where the matter was amicably settled between the parties, thereafter defendant No. 4 took forcibly possession of the property, hence the suit for possession by the plaintiff.
3. Defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff by way of filing of written statement, besides taking formal legal pleas defence was taken that Beant Singh never executed any Sale Deed in favour of Gurbax Singh as alleged by the plaintiff; plaintiff did not get mutation done; Beant Singh and his family members i.e. defendants No. 1,2 and 3 remained in possession till the death of Beant Singh and from 21.4.1981 i.e. from the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No. 4, defendant No. 4 is in possession. Defendant has matured title by way of adverse possession.
4. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession having observed that Beant Singh was the owner in possession of the property in dispute and had alienated the property in favour of the father of the plaintiff i.e. Gurbax Singh vide Sale Deed dated 7.7.1965, hence Gurbax Singh acquired valid title from Beant Singh and after the death of Gurbax Singh plaintiff is the owner of the property. Learned trial Court did not accept the defence of the defendants that defendants have matured the title by way of adverse possession.
5. First Appellate Court in appeal filed by the defendants observed that plaintiff has failed to prove Sale Deed dated 7.7.1965. Plaintiff failed to produce the attesting witnesses of alleged Sale Deed. Learned First Appellate Court further observed that since Sale Deed dated 7.7.1965 was not proved by plaintiff by producing attesting witnesses hence, plaintiff cannot be said having title of the property. Ultimately First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Judgment of the learned First Appellate Court is under challenged in this appeal.
6. In the present appeal following substantial question of law arises for just and fair adjudication of the case:
1. As to whether strong presumption is attached about the correctness of contents of the Sale Deed dated 7.7.1965; in view of Section 32, 34 and 60 of Registration Act?
2. As to whether defendant No. 4 could acquire any title from the LRs of Beant Singh pursuant to Sale Deed dated 21.4.1981, applying the principle "None can transfer title better than be himself has?
3. As to whether defendant No. 4 is a bona fide purchaser?
7. Substantial Question of Law No. 1. - Plaintiffs case is based on registered Sale Deed dated 7.7.1965 allegedly executed by Beant Singh father of defendant No. 1, 2 and husband of defendant No. 3. The original Sale Deed was produced before the trial Court. Original Sale Deed contains registration certificate as required by Section 60 of Registration Act.
8. Section 32 of Registration Act reads as under:
Person to present documents for registration.- Except in the cases mentioned in (Sections 31, 88, 89), every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office:
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or
(b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or
(c) by the agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.
9. Section 34 of Registration Act reads as under:
Enquiry before registration by registering officer.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25, and 26. Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in case where the delay in appearing ten times and amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable u/s 25, the document may be registered.
(2) Appearances under Sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times.
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon - (a) Enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
(4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to Sub-section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom be is subordinate.
(5) Nothing in this Section applies to copies of decrees or orders.
10. Section 60 of Registration Act reads as under:
Certificate of registration.-
(1) After such of the provision of Sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 as apply to any document presented for registration have been complied with, the registering officer shall endorse thereon a certificate containing the word "registered", together with the number and page of the book in which the document has been copied.
(2) Such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the registering officer, and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by this Act, and that the facts mentioned in the endorsement, referred to in Section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned.
11. From the combined reading of Sections 32, 34 and 60 of Registration Act it can very well be said that
(i) person executing the document or his agent or representative as the case may be shall present the document before the Registrar for Registration in person.
(ii) At the time of presentation of document before the Registrar for Registration such person executing the document shall appear in person.
(iii) Before Registration Registrar shall enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed.
(iv) At the time of inquiry Registrar shall satisfy himself about the identity of the person appearing before him and alleging to have executed the document.
(v) Thereafter, Registrar shall register the document.
(vi) and Registration certificate issued by the Registrar shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by this Act and the facts mentioned therein in fact have accrued.
12. Endorsement of the Registrar on the Sale Deed produced before the trial Court goes to prove that Beant Singh presented the Sale Deed before the Registrar and admitted before the Registrar its execution and receiving of consideration in lieu of the Sale Deed.
13. In view of the discussion hereinabove I find that strong presumption is attached about the correctness of contents of the Registration certificate certifying that in fact Beant Singh himself appeared before the Registrar and admitted the execution of the Sale Deed dated 7.7.1965, in the present case I find no evidence to dis-prove the presumption attached with the Registration certificate on the Sale Deed dated 7.7.1965. Substantial question No. 1 is answered in favour of appellant.
14. Substantial Question of Law No. 2. - From the observations made by this Court while replying substantial question of law No. 1, it is proved that Beant Singh had executed Sale Deed in favour of Gurbax Singh (Father of the plaintiff) on 7.7.1965. Hence, after the death of Beant Singh defendants No. 1,2 and 3 did not inherit any right or title in the property in dispute. Since defendants No. 1,2 and 3 did not inherit any right or title in property in dispute, hence, they were not authorized to execute any Sale Deed in favour of defendant No. 4, hence, applying that none can transfer title better than he himself has it can be said that defendant No. 4 did not acquire any title in the property in dispute. Substantial question of law No. 2 is answered in favour of appellant accordingly.
15. Substantial Question of Law No. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 argued that before getting the Sale Deed executed respondent No. 4 has inspected entire record to satisfy himself who is the owner of the property in dispute. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 argued that respondent No. 4 is bona fide purchaser.
16. From the perusal of the material on record I did not find even a single word as to whether defendant No. 4 ever visited or inspected the property on the spot before getting Sale Deed executed in his favour. Defendant No. 4 no where stated that on or before alleged Sale Deed dated 21.4.1981 defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 were in possession. From the perusal of the record I find that when defendant No. 4 tried to dispossess the plaintiff pursuant to the Sale Deed dated 12.4.1981 plaintiff had reported the matter to the police. Both the parties thereafter, settled the matter in the Police Station admitting the possession of the plaintiff. Moreover, since defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 did not inherit any title from Beant Singh, hence, defendant No. 4 cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser. Substantial question of law No. 3 is answered against the respondent No. 4.
17. In view of the above, judgment passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be sustained. Appeal is allowed. Judgment of First Appellate Court is set aside. Judgment and decree of trial Court is restored. Plaintiff-appellant shall be entitled for the cost of the litigation form the defendants.
