Sawichhungi vs Lalruati

1.Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent.

The appellant has challenged the Judgment & Order dated 29.03.2017 and Decree dated 29.03.2017, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-

III, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No. 34/2009, by which the respondent/plaintiff has been declared as the legal and rightful owner of the land and

building covered by LSC No. AZL 1088/1997 located at Chaltlang, Aizawl.

The case of the respondent/plaintiff in the Trial Court was that she had bought the land and building owned by the appellant/defendant, which was

covered by LSC No. AZL 1088/1997, on payment of cost of Rs. 24 lakhs. A sale deed in respect of the sale of land and building was executed

between respondent and the appellant on 23.03.2007 and the same was registered in the Office of the Registrar of documents on 08.09.2009, as per

the Registration Act, 1908. However, when the respondent attempted to mutate the ownership of the said LSC No. AZL 1088/1997 in the Revenue

Department, Government of Mizoram, the appellant refuse to co-operate with the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent filed Declaratory Suit No.

34/2009 praying for a decree for declaring her as the legal and absolute owner of the suit land. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl allowed

Declaratory Suit No. 34/2009 vide Judgment & Order dated 29.03.2017 and Decree dated 29.03.2017, by declaring the respondent as the legal and

rightful owner of the land and building covered by LSC No. AZL 1088/1997.

The appellant’s case in brief is that the appellant is the owner of land and building covered by LSC AZL. The appellant’s counsel has

challenged the impugned Judgment & Order and Decree, on the ground that the appellant had never sold the land to the respondent and that the

appellant had been cheated by one Rami and Nubuangi who had requested her to lend them her LSC for three months, for the purpose of enabling

them to take a loan. On repayment of the loan by Rami and Nubuangi, the land documents, i.e., the LSC would be returned to the appellant. The

appellant was to receive Rs. 1 lakh for the cost of lending her LSC for a period of three months. However, the appellant later came to learn that the

said Rami and Nubuangi had allegedly sold the land to the respondent, without her knowledge and by playing a fraud on her. The appellant’s

counsel submits that the appellant was made to sign a document, which was written in English, which she could not read. She signed the same on the

belief that the same was needed for the purpose of obtaining a loan and did not know that the same had been sold. The appellant’s counsel also

submits that the evidence given by the respondent was way beyond her pleadings in the plaint, which cannot be allowed. He also submits that the sale

deed dated 23.03.2007 was registered as per the Registration Act, 1908 only on 08.09.2009, which was way beyond the permissible time period given

under Section 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908. He also submits that insufficient stamp duty was paid while registering the sale deed and that

the respondent did not submit sufficient Court fee while filing the suit.

The appellant’s counsel also submits that the affidavit accompanying the plaint was not signed before any authority, as required by law and

accordingly, the plaint could not have been registered by the Trial Court. He also submits that the alleged sale money for the alleged sale of the LSC

was never received by the appellant. However, Rs. 1 lakh wasreceived by the appellant for the cost of lending her LSC, for a period of three months

to Rami and Nubuangi.

The counsel for the respondent submits that with regard to the difference between the contents in the plaint and the evidence given by the

respondent, details are not required to be given in the plaint, so long as they fulfill the requirements of Order 7 Rule 1 CPC. He also submits that the

evidence of the appellant goes to show that the appellant wanted to sell her land and that the appellant had willingly signed the sale deed. He also

submits that the appellant has not taken any action till date to re-claim her land LSC by filing any claim or counter claim. As such, there is no merit in

the present appeal. The respondent’s counsel also submits that as per the evidence given by the respondent, the respondent had presented the sale

deed dated 23.03.2007 before the Registrar of documents in the month of first week of July, 2007. However, as the respondent did not carry any

money, the registration could not be made. He submits that this evidence of the respondent is corroborated by the evidence of the respondent’s

other witnesses in the proceedings before the Trial Court. He also submits that though the sale deed was insufficiently stamp on the date of execution

of the sale deed, the stamp duty required, for a sale deed to be registered as per the Indian Stamp (Mizoram Amendment) Amending Act, 2007, which

came into force on 21.09.2007, was Rs. 500/-. He accordingly submits that as on 08.09.2009, the stamp duty required for the sale deed to be

registered was only Rs. 500/-. The respondent’s counsel also submits that the evidence of the appellant implies that she is a literate woman, who

was working as a Farm Manager in the Department of Sericulture. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware of the contents of

the sale deed when she signed the same. He accordingly prays that the present appeal should be dismissed as it is without any merit.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Though there are various issues that can be gone into in the present appeal, as there are discrepancies in the stand taken by the parties vis-Ã -vis

the depositions recorded by the Trial Court, this Court is confining itself only to the issues of whether the sale deed dated 23.03.2007 was validly

registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and whether proper stamp duty was paid on the sale deed dated 23.03.2007.

Section 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 states as follows:-

“23. Time for presenting documents. â€" Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be

accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution:

Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is

appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final.â€​

Provision where delay in presentation in unavoidable. â€" (1) If, owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, any document executed, or

copy of a decree or order made, in [India] is not presented for registration till after the expiration of the time hereinbefore prescribed in that behalf, the

Registrar, in cases where the delay in presentation does not exceed four months, may direct that, on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the

amount of the proper registration-fee, such document shall be accepted for registration.

(2) Any application for such direction may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is

subordinate.â€​

A perusal of the above provisions of law clearly show that a document for registration can be accepted within four months from the date of

execution and in exceptional cases, the aforesaid period of four months can be extended for a further period of four months. In the present case, the

sale deed dated 23.03.2007 has been executed after more than two years of its execution, i.e., on 08.09.2009. As per the law laid down by the Apex

Court in the case of Bondar Singh & Ors. Vs. Nihal Singh & Ors., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161, Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2)

Through Director Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 and the Judgment of this Court in Sanglura Sailo (Now Dead) Vs. C.

Lalrampari, reported in (2013) 2 GLT 274, the registration of a document beyond the extended period of 8 months cannot be said to have been validly

registered. Accordingly, no sale of land and building covered by LSC No. AZL 1088/1997 can be understood to have taken place in law and the sale

would have to be considered to be void.

In Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:-

“18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a

deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.

Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of

Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted

under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a

conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale

does not create any interest or charge on its subject â€" matter.â€​

Though the learned counsel for the respondent has tried to project that the sale deed was presented to the Office of District Registrar for

registration in the first week of July, 2007, no supporting material/evidence in that regard has been submitted by way of any document or evidence

from the Office of the District Registrar.

A reading of the evidence of the respondent and her witnesses to the effect that the respondent had presented the sale deed dated 23.03.2007 to

the District Registrar forregistration, along with two other sale deeds and that the registration was not done due to the respondent not having sufficient

money for registration fee for the three sale deeds, there is no corroborating evidence given from the side of the Office of the District Registrar. The

said evidence given by the respondent is not accepted by this Court, as the respondent had registered the sale deed, after more than two years of

it’s presentation and that also, only because the respondent allegedly did not bring sufficient money for registration. In the absence of any

receipt/acknowledgement of the alleged presentation of the sale deed by the Office of the Registrar of documents, it implies that the sale deed was

not presented within the permissible time limit.

In respect to the question whether the sale deed dated 23.03.2007 was sufficiently stamped or not, it is seen that under Section 23 of the

Registration Act, 1908, the respondent was to present the sale deed for registration within four months of its execution. According to the

respondent’s counsel, the same had been presented in the first week of July, 2007. Assuming that the same had been presented on the first week

of July, 2007, the sale deed was insufficiently stamped on the said date of its alleged presentation, as under the Indian Stamp (Mizoram Amendment)

Act, 1996, i.e., the applicable law, prior to the Indian Stamp (Mizoram Amendment) Amending Act, 2007, stamp duty of Rs. 47,500+10% of the value

above Rs. 10 lakhs was required to be paid, in case of sale of immoveable property whose valuation was beyond Rs. 10 lakhs. Thus, even assuming

that the sale deed had been presented within the time limit prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, the sale deed was insufficiently

stamped. In Bondar Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held that under the law, a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it

can convey title to vendee. The sale of the suit land having taken place on 23.03.2007, the Indian Stamp (Mizoram Amendment) Amending Act, 2007

could not be made applicable to the sale deed dated 23.03.2007, as the Indian Stamp (Mizoram Amendment) Amending Act, 2007 does not have any

retrospective application.

The Trial Court in Declaratory Suit No. 34/2009 had framed the following four issues:-

Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style?

Whether the Defendant sold the land under LSC No. AZL. 1088 of 1997 to the Plaintiff?

Whether the sale deed alleged to have executed by the defendant is genuine or not?

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or not. If so, to what extent. All the issued framed by the Trial Court went in favour of the

respondent. However, the learned Trial Court failed to frame any issue with regard to whether the sale deed dated 23.03.2007 could be said to have

been validly registered under the Registration Act, 2009, as the same was registered only on 08.09.2009, while the law required registration of a sale

deed within four months from the date of its execution, as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, 2009.

As the evidence of the parties clearly shows that the sale deed dated 23.03.2009 was insufficiently stamped as per the Indian Stamp (Mizoram

Amendment) Act, 1996, even if it is assumed that the sale deed was presented on time, the presentation has to be a good presentation, though actual

registration may be delayed. In the present case, even assuming that the presentation of the sale deed had been made on time, though the same is not

proved, the presentation was not a good presentation as it was insufficiently stamped. Further, no receipt/document or evidence of the Registrar of

documents has been submitted in the trial proceedings to prove and corroborate the respondents’ claim that the insufficiently stamped sale deed

was presented in the office of the Registrar of documents in the first week of July, 2007. Time of presentation of a document is the very essence of

registration, to prove that the document was validly registered under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908. It was the duty of the respondent to

prove by way of documentary evidence that the alleged presentation of the sale deed was recorded in the register/records, maintained by the

Registrar of documents at the time of its alleged presentation. However, as stated above, no such documentary evidence has been produced by the

respondent in the Trial Court. Further, the very fact that the sale deed was registered after more than two years of its execution clearly implies that

the sale deed was not presented in time. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the sale deed dated 23.03.2007 being void cannot be

acted upon, as no right, title or interest in the immovable property was transferred. This Court thus holds that the respondent cannot be said to be the

legal and rightful owner of the land and building covered by LSC No. AZL 1088/1997. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Order dated

29.03.2017 and Decree dated 29.03.2017, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No. 34/2009 are hereby set

aside.

Send back the LCR.