SATYA PAL ANAND Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS

REGISTRATION ACT, 1908

Section 69 - Power of Inspector-

Tags Interpretation

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 6673 of 2014, Judgment Date: Aug 25, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6673 OF 2014

Satya Pal Anand ... Appellant
Versus

State of M.P. and Others ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The appellant, a septuagenarian, filed an application dated 4.2.2008
in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal, the third respondent herein,
for cancellation of registered documents dated 9.8.2001, 21.4.2004 and
11.7.2006 which pertain to registration of immoveable property situated on
Plot No. 7-B, Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal. As put forth by the
appellant in his application, the said plot was allotted to his mother,
Smt. Veeravali Anand, by the Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. (for
short, “the Society”), the fourth respondent herein, by entering into a
sale deed dated 22.3.1962, registered on 30.03.1962. Smt. Veeravali Anand
expired on 12.6.1988. After her death, the fourth respondent, through its
office bearer executed a Deed of Extinguishment on 9.8.2001 unilaterally
cancelling the said allotment and on the strength of such document,
executed a registered sale deed dated 21.4.2004 in favour of Mrs. Manjit
Kaur, the respondent no. 5 herein. Mrs. Manjit Kaur in her turn executed
another sale deed dated 11.7.2006 in favour of the respondent nos. 6 and 7,
Mrs. Meenakhsi and Mr. S.C. Sharma.

2. As is evident, under these circumstances, the appellant moved the Sub-
Registrar (Registration) seeking cancellation of the Deed of Extinguishment
dated 9.8.2001. The Sub-Registrar rejected the said prayer on two counts,
namely, the dispute between the parties was pending before the competent
authority under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the
1960 Act’) and secondly, his jurisdiction was limited only to the extent of
registering the documents and if any party desired its cancellation, then
to verify that the cancellation deed is registered on appropriate stamp
paper. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, “the Act”), which was rejected by
the Inspector General (Registration) stating that the powers conferred on
Inspector General (Registration) under Section 69 of the Act is limited to
general superintendence of the registration office and making rules and not
to provide hearing by any Sub-Registrar. The Inspector General further
intimated him that against the order of Sub-Registrar, it was open to the
appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings before a Court of competent
jurisdiction.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant preferred W.P.
No. 13505 of 2008 before the High Court. The prayer in the writ petition
was for declaring the Extinguishment Deed as well as the subsequent sale
deeds as void ab initio with a further direction to the respondents to
record the cancellation of such documents. It was contended before the
High Court that the Extinguishment Deed was registered contrary to the
provisions contained in Section 17(1)(b) of the Act by the Sub-Registrar
and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the higher authorities in
exercise of powers under Section 69 of the Act to declare the said action
as ab initio void and consequently the subsequent sale deeds to be void.

4. The said stand and stance of the appellant was resisted by the
contesting respondents contending, inter alia, that as the initial
allottee, Smt. Veeravali Anand, did not take any steps for 35 years to
raise any construction on the plot in question, the respondent no. 4
registered the Extinguishment Deed on 9.8.2001. On the strength of said
deed, the respondent society executed and registered the sale deed dated
21.4.2004 in favour of Manjit Kaur. At that juncture, the appellant and
the respondents, to avoid any controversy, entered into a deed of
compromise dated 6.7.2004 whereunder the appellant received consideration
of Rs.6,50,000/- (rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only); Rs. 4,50,000/- by
demand draft and Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs by post dated cheques. Thereafter,
the appellant filed an application under Section 64 of the 1960 Act before
the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, forming the subject matter of
Dispute No. 81 of 2005. Along with said application, an application under
Section 57(1) of the 1960 Act was filed for ad interim injunction which was
granted by the said authority on 1.2.2006 restraining the respondents to
make any construction over the said property. The said order of injunction
stood vacated by order dated 12.4.2006. The said order vacating the order
of injunction was affirmed by the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar
was directed to finally adjudicate the dispute.

5. As the factual matrix would unveil as the appellant instituted many a
legal proceeding against the respondents, they issued a notice on 12.7.2007
asking him to refund the consideration amount of Rs.6 lakhs. Against
various orders, the appellant preferred three special leave petitions, i.e.
SLP(C) No. 34857 of 2010, SLP(C) No. 13255 of 2012 and the present appeal
arising out of SLP(C) No. 9502 of 2012. The SLP(C) No. 34857 of 2010 was
preferred assailing the maintainability of the revision petition and the
said SLP is pending. SLP(C) No. 13255 of 2012 relates to appointment of
receiver to protect his interest, which stood dismissed by order dated
17.7.2013. I shall refer to the said order in detail at the appropriate
time.

6. The High Court took note of the factual assertions, scanned the
relevant provisions of the Act, took note of the authorities cited by the
appellant and eventually came to hold that the controversy raised by the
appellant could be adjudicated before the appropriate forum and not in the
writ proceeding. The High Court further held that the authorities under
the Act had correctly stated that they have no jurisdiction to decide the
soundness of registration of Extinguishment Deed or the sale deeds and
declare them as null and void.

7. I have heard Mr. Satya Pal Anand, appellant-in-person and Mr. S.K.
Dubey, learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Satyajit
A. Desai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 7.

8. Though there are manifold assertions by the appellant and counter
asseverations covering various arenas, the core issue that arises for
consideration in the obtaining factual matrix is whether the Deed of
Extinguishment and the subsequent sale deeds registered by the Sub-
Registrar under the Act could be cancelled by the Sub-Registrar or by his
superior authority in exercise of powers conferred under the Act. There is
no cavil over the fact that Extinguishment Deed was registered on 9.8.2001
and subsequent sale deeds were registered thereafter. The stand of the
respondents is that they had paid the amount to the appellant and there is
a finding to that effect in the Special Leave Petition that has been
dismissed by this Court.

9. Presently, I shall deal with the scheme of the Act. Section 17
occurring in Part III of the Act deals with the documents of which
registration is compulsory. The controversy pertains to Section 17(1)(b)
of the Act, as urged by the appellant. The said provision reads as
follows:-

“17(1)(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to
create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in
future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the
value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;”

10. Section 18 of the Act deals with the documents of which registration
is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with the documents containing
interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. The said provision is
reproduced below:-

“20. Documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations.
– (1) The registering officer may in his discretion refuses to accept for
registration any document in which any interlineation, blank, erasure or
alteration appears, unless the persons executing the document attest with
their signatures or initials such interlineation, blank, erasure or
alteration.

(2) If the registering officer registers any such document, he shall, at
the time of registering the same, make a note in the register of such
interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration.

11. Section 21 of the Act provides for description of property and maps
or plans. The said provision is as under:-

“21. Description of property and maps or plans. (1) No non-testamentary
document relating to immovable property shall be accepted for registration
unless it contains a description of such property sufficient to identify
the same.

(2) Houses in towns shall be described as situate on the north or other
side of the street or road (which should be specified) to which they front,
and by their existing and former occupancies, and by their numbers if the
houses in such street or road are numbered.

(3) Other houses and land shall be described by their name, if any, and as
being the territorial division in which they are situate, and by their
superficial contents, the roads and other properties on which they abut,
and their existing occupancies, and also, whenever it is practicable, by
reference to a government map or survey.

(4) No non-testamentary document containing a map or plan of any property
comprised therein shall be accepted for registration unless it is
accompanied by a true copy of the map or plan, or, in case such property is
situate in several districts, by such number of true copies of the map or
plans as are equal to the number of such districts.”

12. Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference
to Government maps or surveys. The said provision is as follows:-

“22. Description of houses and land by reference to government maps of
surveys. – (1) Where it is, in the opinion of the State Government,
practicable to describe houses, not being houses in towns, and lands by
reference to a government map or survey, the State Government may, by rule
made under this Act, require that such houses and lands as aforesaid shall,
for the purposes of section 21, be so described.

(2) Save as otherwise provided by any rule made under sub-section (1),
failure to comply with the provisions of section 21, sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3), shall not disentitle a document to be registered if the
description of the property to which it relates is sufficient to identify
that property.”

13. Section 32 of the Act, which occurs in Part VI provides for persons
to present documents for registration. The said provision is reproduced
below:-

“32. Persons to present documents for registration – Except in the cases
mentioned in sections 31, 88 and 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 assignee of such a person, or

(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly
authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner
hereinafter mentioned.”

14. Section 32A of the Act which has been inserted w.e.f. 24.9.2001, lays
down compulsory affixing of photographs, etc. Section 33 of the Act
stipulates the power of attorney recognizable for purposes of Section 32.
Section 34 of the Act provides for enquiry before registration by the
Registering Officer.

15. I have referred to the aforesaid provisions to understand the scheme
of registration and the role of the Registration Officer. It is urged by
the appellant that the Extinguishment Deed was registered contrary to the
provisions contained in Section 17(1) (b) of the Act and in a fraudulent
manner. Section 17(1)(b) stipulates certain categories of documents which
are required to be registered. It stipulates registration of non-
testamentary documents which purport or operate to create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees
and upwards, to or in immovable property. It is contended by the appellant
that authority, on the ground of fraud, can declare the deeds to be null
and void. To bolster the said stand, he has drawn inspiration from the
authority in Yanala Malleshwari v. Anantula Sayamma[1] (Full Bench).
Before the Full Bench, the question arose whether a person can nullify the
sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed and whether the
Registering Officer like District Registrar and/or Sub-Registrar appointed
by the State Government, is bound to refuse registration when a
cancellation deed is presented. Rao, J., adverting to the provisions of
the Act and the Rules and dwelling upon the concept of fraud held thus:-

“The person, who has ex facie right whether such right is registered or not
can always approach the registering authority, with a request to cancel a
sale deed, which was registered earlier by such registering authority by
showing that subsequent registration was obtained by fraud by a person who
is not entitled to transfer the property or that such transfer was
registered by playing fraud on the owner or on the stranger. In the present
statutory dispensation, namely, Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act,
Specific Relief Act and Registration Act, the Court does not see any
prohibition operating on the exercise of inherent power by the registering
authority to cancel the sale deed earlier registered, which is likely to
cause prejudice to the true owner as well as to the entire public at
large.”

Chandraiah, J., while concurring with Rao, J. opined that:-

“I would like to reiterate that there is no specific prohibition under the
Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') to register a deed of
cancellation. The Registering Officer can refuse registration in the
situations arising under Sections 19 - 22, 32 and 35 and the relevant rules
are Rules 26, 58 and 117. But in all other cases where the conditions under
the Act i.e., Sections 17 and 18 of the Act are fulfilled, the Registering
Officer is bound to register the document and it is not in dispute that the
cancellation deed fulfills the conditions for the purpose of registration.
However, the Act does not permit the Registering Officer to enquire into
the title of the party presenting the document for registration and the
situations mentioned in the above said provisions under which the
registration can be refused are for different purpose and only under those
contingencies he can refuse. This Court cannot enlarge the scope of these
provisions under the guise of interpretation of statute. Further when there
is no prohibition under the Act the Registering Officer has to register the
documents presented for registration in accordance with law and this Court
by judicial interpretation cannot impose the same into the statute. It is
well settled that what has not been provided for in a statute cannot be
supplied by Courts and to do so will amount to legislating which is not the
function of the Courts.”

16. In the said case, the minority view is to the following effect:-

“The purpose of noting down these provisions of TP Act and the Registration
Act is to come to a conclusion as to whether a vendor retains any interest
in the property which he sold and of which a sale deed was executed and
registered. The answer is emphatic 'no'. Therefore, in my view, when a
person transfers all his rights, his rights in the properly get
extinguished and if he tries to get back the property, it has to be done by
challenging the sale deed which he has executed and which is registered by
the Sub-Registrar.”

17. It is apt to note here that in the said case, the majority took the
view that if a person is aggrieved by the cancellation deed, his remedy is
to seek an appropriate relief in the civil court and the writ petition is
not the proper remedy.

18. The High Court in the impugned order has also referred to a Division
Bench decision of the Madras High Court in E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector
General of Registration, Chennai and Anr[2]. In the said case, the
Division Bench took note of the decision in Yanala Malleshwari (supra) and
the Rule 26(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules that was introduced
after the verdict of the Full Bench. The Division Bench dealt with
decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the constitutional
validity of the newly amended Rule, which provides for adherence to the
principles of natural justice when there is presentation of unilateral
cancellation deed. The Madras High Court observed that the situation is
prevalent in Andhra because of rule position and thereafter proceeded to
state thus:-

“In this context, we may also usefully refer to the judgment of a learned
single Judge of this Court in G.D. Subramaniam v. The Sub-Registrar,
Konur[3]. The learned Judge has extensively considered the scope of
registration of cancellation of sale deed and had ultimately held that such
unilateral cancellation of deed cannot be made in the absence of any
specific provision for the Registrar to do so. We are entirely in agreement
with the said view taken by the learned single Judge.”

Be it noted, after so stating, the Division Bench opined thus:-

“That apart, on the facts of this case, our attention is not drawn to any
of the specific provision under the Registration Act empowering the
Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration on the
ground that the sale consideration was not paid and consequently, received
by the vendor. Further, in our opinion, when the Registrar satisfies
himself on the perusal of the document, wherein it is stated that the full
sale consideration is received and on such satisfaction, entertain the
document for registration, cannot thereafter be conferred with a power for
cancellation of the deed on the ground that the full sale consideration was
not paid and received by the vendor. Conferring such power on the Registrar
would tantamount to conferring a power to decide the disputed questions.
That apart, as already stated, in the absence of any provision specifically
empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for
registration, without the signature of both the vendor and the purchaser,
the deed cannot be entertained. For the said reason, we find no infirmity
in the impugned circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.”

19. In this regard, I may usefully refer to the judgment referred in M.
Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub Registrar, Bangalore and Another[4], by a learned
Single Judge of Karnataka High Court. In the said case, the petitioner
therein claimed that he was the lawful owner of the property and the
concerned cooperative society had no right over the said site nor could it
be sold by the said society in favour of the private respondents. It was
contended that the Sub-Registrar could not have registered the sale deed
relating to the said site in favour of the second respondent. A notice was
sent to the Sub-Registrar by the petitioner calling upon to remove the name
of the second respondent as purchaser of the site, but the said request was
not complied with by the concerned Sub-Registrar. Being dissatisfied with
the said inaction, a writ petition was filed seeking appropriate direction
to consider the demand contained in the notice. The learned Single Judge
while dealing with the concept of registration of instruments under the
Act, observed that:-

“The object and intent of providing for registration of instruments under
the Act is to create and maintain a public record of transactions relating
to immovable properties, on which every person dealing with an immovable
property can rely with confidence, for a full and complete account of the
transactions by which his title to the immovable property, may be affected.
Section 17 of the Act enumerates the documents of which the registration is
compulsory. All instruments (except Wills) which purport or operate to
create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in
future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, in
regard to an immovable property, the value of which is Rs. 100/- or more,
and all Gift Deeds as also leases relating to immovable properties for any
term exceeding one year, are compulsory registrable.”

Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to various provisions of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1885 and also of the Act and concluded as
follows:-

“.......when a person who claims to be the owner or a person interested in
an immovable property, finds that someone else has executed and registered
a sale deed or other deed in regard to his property, claiming to be the
owner or a person interested in the property, the appropriate course for
him is to file a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. If he is
satisfied such sale deed is executed by a person without any title and that
the deed is void ab initio, he may even choose to ignore the same and leave
it to the person claiming title under such deed to establish his title in
appropriate proceedings. A Court of Law has the jurisdiction to declare a
document to be void or even cancel a document. But under no circumstances,
a person claiming to be the owner of a property or a holder of a property,
can require the Registering Authority to cancel the registration of a
document.”

20. In this context, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
others[5]. In the said case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had
dismissed the writ petition relying on the Full Bench decision in Yanala
Malleshwari (supra). The father of the appellants therein had purchased
the plot in question from the 4th respondent by a registered sale deed
dated 21.6.1983 and since then they were in possession and enjoyment of the
said property. Subsequently, the fourth respondent unilaterally registered
the cancellation deed without any notice to the appellants. A writ
petition was filed seeking declaration that the cancellation deed was
illegal but the said writ petition was dismissed holding that the
appellants should approach the civil court. This Court, in the said
factual matrix opined:-

“In our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to approach the civil
court as the said cancellation deed dated 4-8-2005 as well as registration
of the same was wholly void and non est and can be ignored altogether. For
illustration, if A transfers a piece of land to B by a registered sale
deed, then, if it is not disputed that A had the title to the land, that
title passes to B on the registration of the sale deed (retrospectively
from the date of the execution of the same) and B then becomes the owner of
the land. If A wants to [pic]subsequently get that sale deed cancelled, he
has to file a civil suit for cancellation or else he can request B to sell
the land back to A but by no stretch of imagination, can a cancellation
deed be executed or registered. This is unheard of in law.”

Thereafter, the Court referred to Rule 26(k)(i) of Andhra Pradesh
Registration Rules framed under Section 69 of the Act which reads as
follows:-

“(i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation for
registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of
conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by
all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered
conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a
declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High
Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in
the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale:

Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of
cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously
registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed
is executed by a Civil Judge or a government officer competent to execute
government orders declaring the properties contained in the previously
registered conveyance on sale to be government or assigned or endowment
lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.”

After reproducing the Rule, the Court proceeded to state:-

“A reading of the above Rule also supports the observations we have made
above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that
the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the
parties concerned. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a
competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule
also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration
thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions.”

21. On a reading of the aforesaid judgment, two aspects are noticed. It
is evident from paragraph 4 of the judgment that the Court has opined that
the cancellation deed cannot be executed or registered; and in paragraph 5
of the said judgment, reference has been made to Rule 26(k)(i) which has
been framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Act and
on that basis, it has been ruled that the said Rule supports the
observations made by the Court. It is apt to note here that the case had
arisen from the State of Andhra Pradesh, where specific rule had come into
force after the pronouncement by the Full Bench in the case of Yanala
Malleshwari (supra). That apart the observations made in paragraph 4 of
the decision is of general import.

22. At this juncture, I think it apt to refer to Section 69 of the Act,
which reads as follows:-

“69. Power of Inspector-General to superintend registration offices and
make rules – (1) The Inspector-General shall exercise a general
superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under
the 59 [State Government], and shall have power from time to time to make
rules consistent with this Act—

(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents;

(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to which the
books may be kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any other
electronic form under sub-section (1) of section 16A;]

(b) declaring what language shall be deemed to be commonly used in each
district;

(d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under sections 25 and 34,
respectively;

(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the registering
officer by section 63;

(f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make
memoranda of documents;

(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and Sub-Registrars of the
books kept in their respective offices under section 51;

(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in sub-
section (2) of section 88 may be presented for registration;

(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos. I, II, III
and IV, respectively;

(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration
offices; and

(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub-
Registrars.

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6673 OF 2014




Satya Pal Anand                                               ... Appellant
                                   Versus

State of M.P. and Others                                    ... Respondents





                               J U D G M E N T



Dipak Misra, J.



      The appellant, a septuagenarian, filed an application  dated  4.2.2008
in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal,  the  third  respondent  herein,
for cancellation of  registered  documents  dated  9.8.2001,  21.4.2004  and
11.7.2006 which pertain to registration of immoveable property  situated  on
Plot No. 7-B, Punjabi Bagh, Raisen  Road,  Bhopal.   As  put  forth  by  the
appellant in his application, the said plot  was  allotted  to  his  mother,
Smt. Veeravali Anand, by the Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society  Ltd.  (for
short, “the Society”), the fourth respondent  herein,  by  entering  into  a
sale deed dated 22.3.1962, registered on 30.03.1962.  Smt.  Veeravali  Anand
expired on 12.6.1988.  After her death, the fourth respondent,  through  its
office bearer executed a Deed of  Extinguishment  on  9.8.2001  unilaterally
cancelling the  said  allotment  and  on  the  strength  of  such  document,
executed a registered sale deed dated 21.4.2004 in  favour  of  Mrs.  Manjit
Kaur, the respondent no. 5 herein.  Mrs. Manjit Kaur in  her  turn  executed
another sale deed dated 11.7.2006 in favour of the respondent nos. 6 and  7,
Mrs. Meenakhsi and Mr. S.C. Sharma.

2.    As is evident, under these circumstances, the appellant moved the Sub-
Registrar (Registration) seeking cancellation of the Deed of  Extinguishment
dated 9.8.2001.  The Sub-Registrar rejected the said prayer on  two  counts,
namely, the dispute between the parties was  pending  before  the  competent
authority under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act,  1960  (for  short  ‘the
1960 Act’) and secondly, his jurisdiction was limited only to the extent  of
registering the documents and if any party desired  its  cancellation,  then
to verify that the cancellation deed  is  registered  on  appropriate  stamp
paper.  Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section  69  of
the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, “the Act”), which was  rejected  by
the Inspector General (Registration) stating that the  powers  conferred  on
Inspector General (Registration) under Section 69 of the Act is  limited  to
general superintendence of the registration office and making rules and  not
to provide hearing by any  Sub-Registrar.   The  Inspector  General  further
intimated him that against the order of Sub-Registrar, it was  open  to  the
appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings before a  Court  of  competent
jurisdiction.

3.    Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant preferred  W.P.
No. 13505 of 2008 before the High Court.  The prayer in  the  writ  petition
was for declaring the Extinguishment Deed as well  as  the  subsequent  sale
deeds as void ab initio with a  further  direction  to  the  respondents  to
record the cancellation of such documents.   It  was  contended  before  the
High Court that the Extinguishment  Deed  was  registered  contrary  to  the
provisions contained in Section 17(1)(b) of the  Act  by  the  Sub-Registrar
and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the higher  authorities  in
exercise of powers under Section 69 of the Act to declare  the  said  action
as ab initio void and consequently the subsequent sale deeds to be void.

4.    The said stand and  stance  of  the  appellant  was  resisted  by  the
contesting  respondents  contending,  inter  alia,  that  as   the   initial
allottee, Smt. Veeravali Anand, did not take  any  steps  for  35  years  to
raise any construction on  the  plot  in  question,  the  respondent  no.  4
registered the Extinguishment Deed on 9.8.2001.  On  the  strength  of  said
deed, the respondent society executed and registered  the  sale  deed  dated
21.4.2004 in favour of Manjit Kaur.  At that  juncture,  the  appellant  and
the  respondents,  to  avoid  any  controversy,  entered  into  a  deed   of
compromise dated 6.7.2004 whereunder the  appellant  received  consideration
of Rs.6,50,000/- (rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only); Rs.  4,50,000/-  by
demand draft and Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs by  post  dated  cheques.   Thereafter,
the appellant filed an application under Section 64 of the 1960  Act  before
the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies,  forming  the  subject  matter  of
Dispute No. 81 of 2005.  Along with said application, an  application  under
Section 57(1) of the 1960 Act was filed for ad interim injunction which  was
granted by the said authority on 1.2.2006  restraining  the  respondents  to
make any construction over the said property.  The said order of  injunction
stood vacated by order dated 12.4.2006.  The said order vacating  the  order
of injunction was affirmed by the Joint Registrar and the  Deputy  Registrar
was directed to finally adjudicate the dispute.

5.    As the factual matrix would unveil as the appellant instituted many  a
legal proceeding against the respondents, they issued a notice on  12.7.2007
asking him to refund  the  consideration  amount  of  Rs.6  lakhs.   Against
various orders, the appellant preferred three special leave petitions,  i.e.
SLP(C) No. 34857 of 2010, SLP(C) No. 13255 of 2012 and  the  present  appeal
arising out of SLP(C) No. 9502 of 2012.  The SLP(C) No. 34857  of  2010  was
preferred assailing the maintainability of the  revision  petition  and  the
said SLP is pending.  SLP(C) No. 13255 of 2012  relates  to  appointment  of
receiver to protect his interest,  which  stood  dismissed  by  order  dated
17.7.2013.  I shall refer to the said order in  detail  at  the  appropriate
time.

6.    The High Court took  note  of  the  factual  assertions,  scanned  the
relevant provisions of the Act, took note of the authorities  cited  by  the
appellant and eventually came to hold that the  controversy  raised  by  the
appellant could be adjudicated before the appropriate forum and not  in  the
writ proceeding.  The High Court further held  that  the  authorities  under
the Act had correctly stated that they have no jurisdiction  to  decide  the
soundness of registration of Extinguishment  Deed  or  the  sale  deeds  and
declare them as null and void.

7.    I have heard Mr. Satya Pal Anand,  appellant-in-person  and  Mr.  S.K.
Dubey, learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3  and  Mr.  Satyajit
A. Desai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 7.

8.    Though there are manifold assertions  by  the  appellant  and  counter
asseverations covering various  arenas,  the  core  issue  that  arises  for
consideration in the  obtaining  factual  matrix  is  whether  the  Deed  of
Extinguishment  and  the  subsequent  sale  deeds  registered  by  the  Sub-
Registrar under the Act could be cancelled by the Sub-Registrar  or  by  his
superior authority in exercise of powers conferred under the Act.  There  is
no cavil over the fact that Extinguishment Deed was registered  on  9.8.2001
and subsequent sale deeds were registered  thereafter.   The  stand  of  the
respondents is that they had paid the amount to the appellant and  there  is
a finding to that effect  in  the  Special  Leave  Petition  that  has  been
dismissed by this Court.

9.    Presently, I shall deal with  the  scheme  of  the  Act.   Section  17
occurring in Part  III  of  the  Act  deals  with  the  documents  of  which
registration is compulsory.  The controversy pertains  to  Section  17(1)(b)
of the Act, as  urged  by  the  appellant.   The  said  provision  reads  as
follows:-

“17(1)(b)  other non-testamentary instruments which purport  or  operate  to
create, declare, assign, limit or  extinguish,  whether  in  present  or  in
future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent,  of  the
value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;”



10.   Section 18 of the Act deals with the documents of  which  registration
is optional.  Section 20 of the Act  deals  with  the  documents  containing
interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations.   The  said  provision  is
reproduced below:-

“20. Documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or  alterations.
– (1) The registering officer may in his discretion refuses  to  accept  for
registration any document in which any  interlineation,  blank,  erasure  or
alteration appears, unless the persons executing the  document  attest  with
their  signatures  or  initials  such  interlineation,  blank,  erasure   or
alteration.

(2) If the registering officer registers any such  document,  he  shall,  at
the time of registering the same, make  a  note  in  the  register  of  such
interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration.



11.   Section 21 of the Act provides for description of  property  and  maps
or plans.  The said provision is as under:-

“21. Description of property and maps  or  plans.  (1)  No  non-testamentary
document relating to immovable property shall be accepted  for  registration
unless it contains a description of such  property  sufficient  to  identify
the same.

(2) Houses in towns shall be described as situate  on  the  north  or  other
side of the street or road (which should be specified) to which they  front,
and by their existing and former occupancies, and by their  numbers  if  the
houses in such street or road are numbered.

(3) Other houses and land shall be described by their name, if any,  and  as
being the territorial division in which  they  are  situate,  and  by  their
superficial contents, the roads and other properties  on  which  they  abut,
and their existing occupancies, and also, whenever  it  is  practicable,  by
reference to a government map or survey.

(4) No non-testamentary document containing a map or plan  of  any  property
comprised  therein  shall  be  accepted  for  registration  unless   it   is
accompanied by a true copy of the map or plan, or, in case such property  is
situate in several districts, by such number of true copies of  the  map  or
plans as are equal to the number of such districts.”



12.   Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by  reference
to Government maps or surveys.  The said provision is as follows:-

“22. Description of houses and land  by  reference  to  government  maps  of
surveys. – (1) Where  it  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  State  Government,
practicable to describe houses, not being houses  in  towns,  and  lands  by
reference to a government map or survey, the State Government may,  by  rule
made under this Act, require that such houses and lands as aforesaid  shall,
for the purposes of section 21, be so described.

(2) Save as otherwise provided by  any  rule  made  under  sub-section  (1),
failure to comply with the provisions of section 21, sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3), shall not  disentitle  a  document  to  be  registered  if  the
description of the property to which it relates is  sufficient  to  identify
that property.”



13.   Section 32 of the Act, which occurs in Part VI  provides  for  persons
to present documents for registration.   The said  provision  is  reproduced
below:-

“32. Persons to present documents for registration –  Except  in  the  cases
mentioned in sections 31, 88 and 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 assignee of such a person, or



(c)  by  the  agent  of  such  a  person,  representative  or  assign,  duly
authorised  by  power-of-attorney  executed  and  authenticated  in   manner
hereinafter mentioned.”



14.   Section 32A of the Act which has been inserted w.e.f. 24.9.2001,  lays
down compulsory affixing  of  photographs,  etc.   Section  33  of  the  Act
stipulates the power of attorney recognizable for purposes  of  Section  32.
Section 34 of the Act  provides  for  enquiry  before  registration  by  the
Registering Officer.

15.   I have referred to the aforesaid provisions to understand  the  scheme
of registration and the role of the Registration Officer.  It  is  urged  by
the appellant that the Extinguishment Deed was registered  contrary  to  the
provisions contained in Section 17(1) (b) of the Act  and  in  a  fraudulent
manner.  Section 17(1)(b) stipulates certain categories of  documents  which
are  required  to  be  registered.   It  stipulates  registration  of   non-
testamentary documents which purport or operate to create, declare,  assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any  right,  title  or
interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one  hundred  rupees
and upwards, to or in immovable property.  It is contended by the  appellant
that authority, on the ground of fraud, can declare the  deeds  to  be  null
and void.  To bolster the said stand, he  has  drawn  inspiration  from  the
authority  in  Yanala  Malleshwari  v.  Anantula  Sayamma[1]  (Full  Bench).
Before the Full Bench, the question arose whether a person can  nullify  the
sale by executing and  registering  a  cancellation  deed  and  whether  the
Registering Officer like District Registrar and/or  Sub-Registrar  appointed
by  the  State  Government,  is  bound  to  refuse   registration   when   a
cancellation deed is presented.  Rao, J., adverting  to  the  provisions  of
the Act and the Rules and dwelling upon the concept of fraud held thus:-

“The person, who has ex facie right whether such right is registered or  not
can always approach the registering authority, with a request  to  cancel  a
sale deed, which was registered earlier by  such  registering  authority  by
showing that subsequent registration was obtained by fraud by a  person  who
is not  entitled  to  transfer  the  property  or  that  such  transfer  was
registered by playing fraud on the owner or on the stranger. In the  present
statutory dispensation, namely, Transfer  of  Property  Act,  Contract  Act,
Specific Relief Act and  Registration  Act,  the  Court  does  not  see  any
prohibition operating on the exercise of inherent power by  the  registering
authority to cancel the sale deed earlier registered,  which  is  likely  to
cause prejudice to the true owner  as  well  as  to  the  entire  public  at
large.”



      Chandraiah, J., while concurring with Rao, J. opined that:-

“I would like to reiterate that there is no specific prohibition  under  the
Registration Act,  1908  (for  short  'the  Act')  to  register  a  deed  of
cancellation.  The  Registering  Officer  can  refuse  registration  in  the
situations arising under Sections 19 - 22, 32 and 35 and the relevant  rules
are Rules 26, 58 and 117. But in all other cases where the conditions  under
the Act i.e., Sections 17 and 18 of the Act are fulfilled,  the  Registering
Officer is bound to register the document and it is not in dispute that  the
cancellation deed fulfills the conditions for the purpose  of  registration.
However, the Act does not permit the Registering  Officer  to  enquire  into
the title of the party presenting the  document  for  registration  and  the
situations  mentioned  in  the  above  said  provisions  under   which   the
registration can be refused are for different purpose and only  under  those
contingencies he can refuse. This Court cannot enlarge the  scope  of  these
provisions under the guise of interpretation of statute. Further when  there
is no prohibition under the Act the Registering Officer has to register  the
documents presented for registration in accordance with law and  this  Court
by judicial interpretation cannot impose the same into the  statute.  It  is
well settled that what has not been provided for  in  a  statute  cannot  be
supplied by Courts and to do so will amount to legislating which is not  the
function of the Courts.”



16.   In the said case, the minority view is to the following effect:-

“The purpose of noting down these provisions of TP Act and the  Registration
Act is to come to a conclusion as to whether a vendor retains  any  interest
in the property which he sold and of which a  sale  deed  was  executed  and
registered. The answer is emphatic 'no'.  Therefore,  in  my  view,  when  a
person  transfers  all  his  rights,  his  rights  in   the   properly   get
extinguished and if he tries to get back the property, it has to be done  by
challenging the sale deed which he has executed and which is  registered  by
the Sub-Registrar.”



17.   It is apt to note here that in the said case, the  majority  took  the
view that if a person is aggrieved by the cancellation deed, his  remedy  is
to seek an appropriate relief in the civil court and the  writ  petition  is
not the proper remedy.

18.   The High Court in the impugned order has also referred to  a  Division
Bench decision of the Madras  High  Court  in  E.R.  Kalaivan  v.  Inspector
General of Registration,  Chennai  and  Anr[2].    In  the  said  case,  the
Division Bench took note of the decision in Yanala Malleshwari  (supra)  and
the Rule 26(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules that was  introduced
after the verdict  of  the  Full  Bench.   The  Division  Bench  dealt  with
decision of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  the  constitutional
validity of the newly amended Rule, which  provides  for  adherence  to  the
principles of natural justice  when  there  is  presentation  of  unilateral
cancellation deed.  The Madras High Court observed  that  the  situation  is
prevalent in Andhra because of rule position  and  thereafter  proceeded  to
state thus:-

“In this context, we may also usefully refer to the judgment  of  a  learned
single Judge of  this  Court  in  G.D.  Subramaniam  v.  The  Sub-Registrar,
Konur[3].  The  learned  Judge  has  extensively  considered  the  scope  of
registration of cancellation of sale deed and had ultimately held that  such
unilateral cancellation of deed  cannot  be  made  in  the  absence  of  any
specific provision for the Registrar to do so. We are entirely in  agreement
with the said view taken by the learned single Judge.”



      Be it noted, after so stating, the Division Bench opined thus:-

“That apart, on the facts of this case, our attention is not  drawn  to  any
of  the  specific  provision  under  the  Registration  Act  empowering  the
Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for  registration  on  the
ground that the sale consideration was not paid and  consequently,  received
by the vendor.  Further,  in  our  opinion,  when  the  Registrar  satisfies
himself on the perusal of the document, wherein it is stated that  the  full
sale consideration is received  and  on  such  satisfaction,  entertain  the
document for registration, cannot thereafter be conferred with a  power  for
cancellation of the deed on the ground that the full sale consideration  was
not paid and received by the vendor. Conferring such power on the  Registrar
would tantamount to conferring a power to  decide  the  disputed  questions.
That apart, as already stated, in the absence of any provision  specifically
empowering the  Registrar  to  entertain  a  document  of  cancellation  for
registration, without the signature of both the vendor  and  the  purchaser,
the deed cannot be entertained. For the said reason, we  find  no  infirmity
in the impugned circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.”



19.   In this regard, I may usefully refer to the judgment  referred  in  M.
Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub Registrar, Bangalore and Another[4], by  a  learned
Single Judge of Karnataka High Court.  In  the  said  case,  the  petitioner
therein claimed that he was  the  lawful  owner  of  the  property  and  the
concerned cooperative society had no right over the said site nor  could  it
be sold by the said society in favour of the private  respondents.   It  was
contended that the Sub-Registrar could not have  registered  the  sale  deed
relating to the said site in favour of the second respondent.  A notice  was
sent to the Sub-Registrar by the petitioner calling upon to remove the  name
of the second respondent as purchaser of the site, but the said request  was
not complied with by the concerned Sub-Registrar.  Being  dissatisfied  with
the said inaction, a writ petition was filed seeking  appropriate  direction
to consider the demand contained in the notice.  The  learned  Single  Judge
while dealing with the concept of  registration  of  instruments  under  the
Act, observed that:-

“The object and intent of providing for registration  of  instruments  under
the Act is to create and maintain a public record of  transactions  relating
to immovable properties, on which every person  dealing  with  an  immovable
property can rely with confidence, for a full and complete  account  of  the
transactions by which his title to the immovable property, may be  affected.
Section 17 of the Act enumerates the documents of which the registration  is
compulsory. All instruments (except  Wills)  which  purport  or  operate  to
create, declare, assign, limit or  extinguish,  whether  in  present  or  in
future, any right, title or  interest,  whether  vested  or  contingent,  in
regard to an immovable property, the value of which is Rs.  100/-  or  more,
and all Gift Deeds as also leases relating to immovable properties  for  any
term exceeding one year, are compulsory registrable.”



      Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to various  provisions  of  the
Transfer of Property Act,  1885  and  also  of  the  Act  and  concluded  as
follows:-


“.......when a person who claims to be the owner or a person  interested  in
an immovable property, finds that someone else has executed  and  registered
a sale deed or other deed in regard to his  property,  claiming  to  be  the
owner or a person interested in the property,  the  appropriate  course  for
him is to file a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.  If  he  is
satisfied such sale deed is executed by a person without any title and  that
the deed is void ab initio, he may even choose to ignore the same and  leave
it to the person claiming title under such deed to establish  his  title  in
appropriate proceedings. A Court of Law has the jurisdiction  to  declare  a
document to be void or even cancel a document. But under  no  circumstances,
a person claiming to be the owner of a property or a holder of  a  property,
can require the Registering  Authority  to  cancel  the  registration  of  a
document.”



20.   In this context, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench  decision  of  this
Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra  Pradesh  and
others[5].  In  the  said  case,  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  had
dismissed the writ petition relying on the Full  Bench  decision  in  Yanala
Malleshwari (supra).  The father of the  appellants  therein  had  purchased
the plot in question from the 4th  respondent  by  a  registered  sale  deed
dated 21.6.1983 and since then they were in possession and enjoyment of  the
said property.  Subsequently, the fourth respondent unilaterally  registered
the cancellation  deed  without  any  notice  to  the  appellants.   A  writ
petition was filed  seeking  declaration  that  the  cancellation  deed  was
illegal  but  the  said  writ  petition  was  dismissed  holding  that   the
appellants should approach  the  civil  court.   This  Court,  in  the  said
factual matrix opined:-

“In our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to approach the  civil
court as the said cancellation deed dated 4-8-2005 as well  as  registration
of the same was wholly void and non est and can be ignored  altogether.  For
illustration, if A transfers a piece of land  to  B  by  a  registered  sale
deed, then, if it is not disputed that A had the title  to  the  land,  that
title passes to B on the registration  of  the  sale  deed  (retrospectively
from the date of the execution of the same) and B then becomes the owner  of
the land. If A wants to [pic]subsequently get that sale deed  cancelled,  he
has to file a civil suit for cancellation or else he can request B  to  sell
the land back to A but by no stretch  of  imagination,  can  a  cancellation
deed be executed or registered. This is unheard of in law.”


      Thereafter, the Court referred to  Rule  26(k)(i)  of  Andhra  Pradesh
Registration Rules framed under  Section  69  of  the  Act  which  reads  as
follows:-

 “(i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time  of  preparation  for
registration  of  cancellation  deeds  of  previously  registered  deed   of
conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed  by
all  the  executant  and  claimant  parties  to  the  previously  registered
conveyance on sale and that such  cancellation  deed  is  accompanied  by  a
declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil  or  High
Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained  in
the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale:

Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the  execution  of
cancellation deeds by executant  and  claimant  parties  to  the  previously
registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation  deed
is executed by a Civil Judge or a government officer  competent  to  execute
government orders declaring  the  properties  contained  in  the  previously
registered conveyance on sale to be  government  or  assigned  or  endowment
lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.”


After reproducing the Rule, the Court proceeded to state:-

“A reading of the above Rule also supports the  observations  we  have  made
above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a  competent  court  that
the cancellation deed can be registered and that too  after  notice  to  the
parties concerned. In this case, neither  is  there  any  declaration  by  a
competent court nor was there any notice to the parties.  Hence,  this  Rule
also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as  registration
thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions.”


21.   On a reading of the aforesaid judgment, two aspects are  noticed.   It
is evident from paragraph 4 of the judgment that the Court has  opined  that
the cancellation deed cannot be executed or registered; and in  paragraph  5
of the said judgment, reference has been made to  Rule  26(k)(i)  which  has
been framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the  Act  and
on  that  basis,  it  has  been  ruled  that  the  said  Rule  supports  the
observations made by the Court.  It is apt to note here that  the  case  had
arisen from the State of Andhra Pradesh, where specific rule  had come  into
force after the pronouncement by the  Full  Bench  in  the  case  of  Yanala
Malleshwari (supra).  That apart the observations made  in  paragraph  4  of
the decision is of general import.

22.   At this juncture, I think it apt to refer to Section 69  of  the  Act,
which reads as follows:-

“69.  Power of Inspector-General to  superintend  registration  offices  and
make  rules  –  (1)  The  Inspector-General   shall   exercise   a   general
superintendence over all the registration offices in the  territories  under
the 59 [State Government], and shall have power from time to  time  to  make
rules consistent with this Act—

(a)   providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents;

(aa)  providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to which  the
books may be kept  in  computer  floppies  or  diskettes  or  in  any  other
electronic form under sub-section (1) of section 16A;]

(b)   declaring what language shall be deemed to be commonly  used  in  each
district;

(c)    declaring  what  territorial  divisions  shall  be  recognized  under
section 21;

(d)   regulating the amount of fines  imposed  under  sections  25  and  34,
respectively;

(e)   regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in  the  registering
officer by section 63;

(f)   regulating  the  form  in  which  registering  officers  are  to  make
memoranda of documents;

(g)   regulating the authentication by Registrars and Sub-Registrars of  the
books kept in their respective offices under section 51;

(gg)  regulating the manner in which the instruments  referred  to  in  sub-
section (2) of section 88 may be presented for registration;

(h)   declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos. I,  II,  III
and IV, respectively;

(i)   declaring the holidays that shall  be  observed  in  the  registration
offices; and

(j)   generally, regulating the  proceedings  of  the  Registrars  and  Sub-
Registrars.

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6673 OF 2014

Satya Pal Anand ... Appellant
Versus

State of M.P. and Others ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

2. As is evident, under these circumstances, the appellant moved the Sub-
Registrar (Registration) seeking cancellation of the Deed of Extinguishment
dated 9.8.2001. The Sub-Registrar rejected the said prayer on two counts,
namely, the dispute between the parties was pending before the competent
authority under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the
1960 Act’) and secondly, his jurisdiction was limited only to the extent of
registering the documents and if any party desired its cancellation, then
to verify that the cancellation deed is registered on appropriate stamp
paper. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 69 of
the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, “the Act”), which was rejected by
the Inspector General (Registration) stating that the powers conferred on
Inspector General (Registration) under Section 69 of the Act is limited to
general superintendence of the registration office and making rules and not
to provide hearing by any Sub-Registrar. The Inspector General further
intimated him that against the order of Sub-Registrar, it was open to the
appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings before a Court of competent
jurisdiction.

4.    The said stand and stance of the appellant was resisted by the
contesting respondents contending, inter alia, that as   the   initial
allottee, Smt. Veeravali Anand, did not take any steps for 35 years to
raise any construction on the plot in question, the respondent no. 4
registered the Extinguishment Deed on 9.8.2001. On the strength of said
deed, the respondent society executed and registered the sale deed dated
21.4.2004 in favour of Manjit Kaur. At that juncture, the appellant and
the respondents, to avoid any controversy, entered into a deed   of
compromise dated 6.7.2004 whereunder the appellant received consideration
of Rs.6,50,000/- (rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only); Rs. 4,50,000/- by
demand draft and Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs by post dated cheques.   Thereafter,
the appellant filed an application under Section 64 of the 1960 Act before
the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, forming the subject matter of
Dispute No. 81 of 2005. Along with said application, an application under
Section 57(1) of the 1960 Act was filed for ad interim injunction which was
granted by the said authority on 1.2.2006 restraining the respondents to
make any construction over the said property. The said order of injunction
stood vacated by order dated 12.4.2006. The said order vacating the order
of injunction was affirmed by the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar
was directed to finally adjudicate the dispute.

7. I have heard Mr. Satya Pal Anand, appellant-in-person and Mr. S.K.
Dubey, learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Satyajit
A. Desai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 7.

(2) If the registering officer registers any such document, he shall, at
the time of registering the same, make a note in the register of such
interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration.

11. Section 21 of the Act provides for description of property and maps
or plans. The said provision is as under:-

12. Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference
to Government maps or surveys. The said provision is as follows:-

13. Section 32 of the Act, which occurs in Part VI provides for persons
to present documents for registration. The said provision is reproduced
below:-

(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 assignee of such a person, or

(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly
authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner
hereinafter mentioned.”

15.   I have referred to the aforesaid provisions to understand the scheme
of registration and the role of the Registration Officer. It is urged by
the appellant that the Extinguishment Deed was registered contrary to the
provisions contained in Section 17(1) (b) of the Act and in a fraudulent
manner. Section 17(1)(b) stipulates certain categories of documents which
are required to be registered.   It stipulates registration of   non-
testamentary documents which purport or operate to create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees
and upwards, to or in immovable property. It is contended by the appellant
that authority, on the ground of fraud, can declare the deeds to be null
and void. To bolster the said stand, he has drawn inspiration from the
authority in Yanala Malleshwari v. Anantula Sayamma[1] (Full Bench).
Before the Full Bench, the question arose whether a person can nullify the
sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed and whether the
Registering Officer like District Registrar and/or Sub-Registrar appointed
by the State Government, is bound to refuse   registration   when   a
cancellation deed is presented. Rao, J., adverting to the provisions of
the Act and the Rules and dwelling upon the concept of fraud held thus:-

Chandraiah, J., while concurring with Rao, J. opined that:-

16. In the said case, the minority view is to the following effect:-

18.   The High Court in the impugned order has also referred to a Division
Bench decision of the Madras High Court in E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector
General of Registration, Chennai and Anr[2].    In the said case, the
Division Bench took note of the decision in Yanala Malleshwari (supra) and
the Rule 26(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules that was introduced
after the verdict of the Full Bench.   The Division Bench dealt with
decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the constitutional
validity of the newly amended Rule, which provides for adherence to the
principles of natural justice when there is presentation of unilateral
cancellation deed. The Madras High Court observed that the situation is
prevalent in Andhra because of rule position and thereafter proceeded to
state thus:-

Be it noted, after so stating, the Division Bench opined thus:-

Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to various provisions of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1885 and also of the Act and concluded as
follows:-

20.   In this context, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
others[5]. In the said case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had
dismissed the writ petition relying on the Full Bench decision in Yanala
Malleshwari (supra). The father of the appellants therein had purchased
the plot in question from the 4th respondent by a registered sale deed
dated 21.6.1983 and since then they were in possession and enjoyment of the
said property. Subsequently, the fourth respondent unilaterally registered
the cancellation deed without any notice to the appellants.   A writ
petition was filed seeking declaration that the cancellation deed was
illegal but the said writ petition was dismissed holding that   the
appellants should approach the civil court.   This Court, in the said
factual matrix opined:-

Thereafter, the Court referred to Rule 26(k)(i) of Andhra Pradesh
Registration Rules framed under Section 69 of the Act which reads as
follows:-

After reproducing the Rule, the Court proceeded to state:-

22. At this juncture, I think it apt to refer to Section 69 of the Act,
which reads as follows:-

(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents;