Jagat Narayan Thakur vs Birendra Hati Baruah

This appeal arises from a decree of the Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh passed in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1980 allowing the appeal by setting aside the decree of the Munsiff, Dibrugarh made in Title Suit No. 73 of 1970.

The facts of the case, in brief, are thus. The plaintiffappellant Shri Jagat Narayan Thakur instituted suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the land under Periodic Patta No. 5 (new) of Simuluguri Gaon having an area of 14 B 2K11 L from Sanika Mura under deed of sale dated 13. 11. 69 executed at Dibrugarh and registered on 27. 2. 70 at Tinsukia Registry Office not at Dibrugarh Registry Office. The defendant No. 1 dispossessed the plaintiff of the suit land on 21. 3. 70 by stating that he had purchased 12 B 2 K O L of land from defendant No, 2. The defendants contested the suit denying the allegations made in the plaint and also by taking that the sale deed was fluctious one. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.

The point for determination in this appeal is whether the sale deed (Ext 1) was validly registered or not. The lower appellate Court has held that the sale deed (Ext.l) was executed on 13. 11. 69 at Dibrugarh where the land is situated and was registered on 27. 2. 70 by the SubRegistrar of Tinsukia and not by the SubRegistrar of Dibrugarh, but the registration of the sale deed executed at Dibrugarh and registered at Tinsukia Registry Office is not barred.

Mr. S. Medhi, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the SubRegistrar of Tinsukia had also jurisdiction to register the document, or in any event, it was defect in the procedure of registration and, therefore, it is curable under section 87 of the Registration Act. Mr. Medhi has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the Heirs of Narayan Chandra vs. Beni Madhav, AIR 1975 Gau 70.

Section 28 provides :

"Save as in this part otherwise provided, every document mentioned in section 17, subsection (1), clauses (a), (h), (c), (d), and (e), section 17, subsection (2), in so far as such document affects immovable property and section 18, clauses (a), (b), (c) and (cc), shall be presented for registration in the office of a SubRegistrar within whose subdistrict the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate."

In view of section 28, the deed executed at Dibrugarh should be presented for registration in the office of the SubRegistrar at Dibrugarh within whose subdistrict the property to which the sale deed relates is situate, and not in the office of the SubRegistrar at Tinsukia. Therefore, the deed has been registered in violation of section 28. The jurisdiction of the SubRegistrar may be restricted by a variety of circumstances. Thus, the jurisdiction may have to be considered with reference to the place and nature of the subject matter. Section 28 relates to the place of registration. Therefore, the defect is not a procedure but it relates to territorial jurisdiction and as such registration in violation of section 28 is not a valid registration and it cannot be received as evidence of the sale. This view of mine finds support from a decision of Privy Council in Harendra Lal vs. Haridasi Debi, ILR (1914) 41 Cal 972, in which it has been held that no portion of the immovable property mortgaged was situated in Calcutta, and as such the deed could not be registered there. The plaintiff therefore had no title to maintain suit.

The decision of this Court in The Heirs of Narayan Chandra''s Case (AIR 1975 Gau 70) relates to SubRegistrars having concurrent jurisdiction. In the present case, there is no material to indicate that SubRegistrars of Dibrugarh and Tinsukia have concurrent jurisdiction. The decision, therefore, does not help the appellant.

As regards the section 87 of the Act provides; "Nothing done in good faith pursuant to this Act or any Act hereby repealed, by any registering officer, shall be deemed invalid merely by reason of any defect on his appointment or procedure. Section 87, therefore, relates to the defect in the appointment of registering officer or defect of procedure followed in the registration. The present case is not a case of defect in the appointment of the registering officer. In respect of the defect of procedure, section 87 clearly indicates that the defect of procedure is with regard to the procedure followed in the course of the registration by registering officer who has territorial jurisdiction to register the document in view of the property mentioned document is situated. The present defect is not contemplated by section 87 as it relates to the jurisdiction of the registering officer and not of defect in procedure followed in the registration. This view of mine finds support from the decision of the Court cited above. In that case it has been held that section 87 does not apply to a case where the question is not one of defect in appointment of SubRegistrar or any defect in the procedure followed in the registration , but the question is one of jurisdiction.

For the reasons stated above, the suit land is within the sub district of the Dibrugarh Registry Office, only the SubRegistrar of Dibrugarh could register the sale deed and not by the Tinsukia Registry Office. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.