Hari Bux Ram vs Chhedi Pande

Adami, J.—The facts which are necessary for a decision of this case are as follows:-

On the 6th of December 1920 the petitioner applied to the Sub-Registrar of Bettiah for compulsory registration of a mortgage and a sale-deed which he alleged had been executed by one Chhedi Pande. Chhedi Pande befre the Sub-Registrar on the 16th December denied execution of those documents and therefore, the Sub-Registrar refused to register them. The petitioner then filed an application u/s 73 of the Registration Act before the District Registrar of Motihari. The District Registrar made over the matter for enquiry to the Special Sub-Registrar who had amalgamated powers under sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Registration Act and had, therefore power to make the inquiry just as if, he were the District Registrar. The Special Sub-Registrar examined witnesses on both sides and found on the 15th of July 1921 that the documents in question had been duly executed by Chhedi Pande and, therefore ordered those documents to be registered. The deeds were actually registered on the 22nd July 1921. The Special Sub-Registrar found that Chhedi Pande had made false statements and. had thus committed an offence u/s 82, clause (a) of the Registration Act and therefore, submitted the papers and a report, dated the 20th July 1921, for the sanction of the District Registrar u/s 83 of the Act. The District Registrar called on Chhedi Panda to show cause against the prosecution u/s 82(a) for falsely denying execution of the sale deed and the mortgage deed. When cause was shown the District Registrar examined witnesses and made a full inquiry and then proceeded to enquire into the whole case; and he came to a finding that the documents in question ought to be cancelled and that they could not be registered, He, therefore, upset the order of the Special Sub-Registrar directing registration and at the same time refused to sanction the prosecution of Chhedi Pande u/s 82 of the Registration Act. It is against this order of the District Registrar that this application has been made.

The grounds taken are that as the Special Sub-Registrar had co-ordinate powers with the District Registrar the District Registrar had no jurisdiction to upset the order of the Special Sub-Registrar, directing registration, or to refuse to confirm the sanction granted by the Special Sub-Registrar for the prosecution of Chhedi Pande.

Now, it is quite clear that the District Registrar was acting as a Revenue Court and there can be no doubt that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in their revenue administration or by the Revenue Courts. The order passed by the District Registrar may have been without jurisdiction but remedy for the petitioner was either to approach the Board of Revenue to get the order set aside as being without jurisdiction, or, if necessary, to file a suit in the Civil Court. With that part of the application this Court has nothing to do. It is next contended that the District Registrar in refusing to accord sanction for the prosecution of Chhedi Pande u/s 82(a) was acting as a Court in a criminal matter and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to interfere. I do not think that it is necessary to enter into the question of the power of this Court to interfere with this order as to sanction. The facts are that the District Registrar has, as District Registrar, given judgment after full inquiry and has found that the sanction should not be accorded. He has given good reasons in that judgment and until that judgment is upset by a proper authority, either by the Board of Revenue or by a decree of a Civil Court, that judgment is a good judgment. That being so, and this Court being unable to go into the reasons for which that finding was come to. I cannot see that I can now interfere with that part of the order which refused to accord sanction. The matter might be looked, at also in another way. If this order were upset by this Court at the present juncture while the judgment of the District Registrar still holds good so far the revenue side of the matter is concerned, there must necessarily, be some confusion. The result of upsetting the District Registrar''s order as to sanction would be to restore the order of the Special Sub-Registrar granting sanction to prosecute Chhedi Pande, and, therefore, we would at the same time have an order of the Sub-Registrar directing the prosecution and a revenue order of the District Registrar to the effect that the case is not one in which registration should be allowed owing to faith being put in the statements made by Chhedi Pande. Under the circumstances, even if this Court had Jurisdiction to interfere with the order as to sanction, I think that this is a case in which this Court would refuse to interfere. The application is, therefore, rejected.

The order passed in the above case will also govern Civil Revision No. 86 of 1922.