C.R. No. 7579 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7579 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.11.2010 Rajesh @ Rakesh .... Petitioner Versus Jaspal Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Sandeep Punchi, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-plaintiff has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa thereby directing the plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit for declaration declaring the sale deeds in question as void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff on the ground that on the date of execution of the sale deeds in question, plaintiff was minor and his parents have played fraud and misrepresentation while producing him before the Registrar for registration of the sale deeds. Learned trial Court has observed that since plaintiff is challenging the sale deeds in question on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and C.R. No. 7579 of 2010 2 plaintiff was executant of the sale deeds in question, hence, plaintiff has to pay ad valorem Court fee. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others, reported in 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564 has held that when sale deed is void and plaintiff is not the executant then relief for mere declaration would be sufficient and plaintiff would not be required to pay ad valorem Court fee. However, Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that if plaintiff is executant then the main relief sought is cancellation of deed and plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem Court fee thereon. Having examined the matter from every aspect, I am of the view that since plaintiff is the executant of the sale deeds in question, hence, the main relief sought is cancellation of the sale deed. The question as to whether plaintiff was minor on the date of execution of the sale deed can only be decided after examination of the entire evidence produced before the trial Court. At this stage, contention of the plaintiff prima facie can not be accepted that he was minor on the date of execution of the sale deed. Moreover, Section 34 of the Registration Act reads as under:- 34. 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: C.R. No. 7579 of 2010 3 Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 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 he is subordinate. (5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders.” C.R. No. 7579 of 2010 4 In the opinion of this Court Registering Authority before the registration of the document is required to satisfy himself on the basis of enquiry made about the identity and authority of the executant. Since Registering Authority has not objected registration of sale deeds in question on the ground that plaintiff executant appears to be minor, hence, prima facie presumption is against the plaintiff. In view of Section 34 of the Registration Act read with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, every official act shall be presumed to be correct unless proved otherwise. At this stage every presumption is against plaintiff, however, plaintiff shall be at liberty to prove it otherwise by producing cogent evidence that he was infact minor. No interference is called for. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 22.11.2010 JUDGE reena