RSA No.2720 of 1987 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2720 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.3.2010 Chanan Singh & others ...Appellants Versus Mit Singh & others .....Respondents 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes/No. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes/No. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes/No. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate with Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Advocate for the respondents. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Plaintiffs-appellants have filed present second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1987 passed by First Appellate Court/ADJ, Sangrur thereby allowing the first appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the half share of the land in dispute and they are entitled for the possession of the land by getting the same partition; Puran Singh and Tara Singh are the owners to the extent of half share of the land; Sawan Singh was also the owner of the half share of the land and Sawan Singh had gifted his entire share in favour of the plaintiff and executed three different RSA No.2720 of 1987 (O&M) 2 registered gift deeds on 3.4.1968; mutation on the basis of those gift deeds were sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs; plaintiffs are entitled for his half share in the property in dispute. 3. Defendants contested the suit alleging therein that the alleged gift deeds were not executed by Sawan Singh and seems to have been executed by someone impersonating himself to be Sawan Singh; Sawan Singh had never been in possession of the suit land. 4. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by recording findings of fact that registered gift deeds in favour of the plaintiffs are proved to be genuine. However, First Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by reversing the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court on the question of genuineness and legality of gift deeds. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of the First Appellate Court plaintiffs have filed present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I formulate substantial question of law as under:- (i)As to whether strong presumption is attached about the correctness of the gift deeds dated 3.4.1968 in view of Sections 32, 34 and 60 of Registeration Act? (ii)As to whether burden of proof on issue No.1 was wrongly placed on the plaintiffs by the learned trial Court resulting in wrong finding? 8. Both the substantial question law formulated herein are taken up together. RSA No.2720 of 1987 (O&M) 3 9. In RSA No.2907 of 1987 Jasvir Singh Vs. Mohan Singh and others decided on 19.3.2010 this Court in Para Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 has held as under:- “8. Section 32 of Registration Act reads as under:- “Person to present documents for registration.- Except in the cases mentioned in (Sections 31, 88, 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 assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of- attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned. 9. Section 34 of Registration Act reads as under:- 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 RSA No.2720 of 1987 (O&M) 4 authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25, and 26. Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in case where the delay in appearing ten times and 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 be is subordinate. RSA No.2720 of 1987 (O&M) 5 (5)Nothing in this Section applies to copies of decrees or orders. “ 10. Section 60 of Registration Act reads as under:- “Certificate of registration.- (1) After such of the provision of Sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 as apply to any document presented for registration have been complied with, the registering officer shall endorse thereon a certificate containing the word “registered”, together with the number and page of the book in which the document has been copied. (2) Such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the registering officer, and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by this Act, and that the facts mentioned in the endorsement, referred to in Section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned.” 11. From the combined reading of Sections 32, 34 and 60 of Registration Act it can very well be said that (i) person executing the document or his agent or representative as the case may be shall present the document before the Registrar for Registration in person. (ii) At the time of presentation of document before the Registrar for Registration such person executing the document shall appear in person. RSA No.2720 of 1987 (O&M) 6 (iii) Before Registration Registrar shall enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. (iv) At the time of inquiry Registrar shall satisfy himself about the identity of the person appearing before him and alleging to have executed the document. (v) Thereafter, Registrar shall register the document. (vi) and Registeration certificate issued by the Registrar shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by this Act and the facts mentioned therein in fact have accrued. 12. Endorsement of the Registrar on the Sale Deed produced before the trial Court goes to prove that Beant Singh presented the Sale Deed before the Registrar and admitted before the Registrar its execution and receiving of consideration in lieu of the Sale Deed.” 10. From the perusal of the gift deed it reveals that learned Registrar has made endorsement thereon that Mr. Sawan Singh presented the gift deed before him and has admitted execution thereof. In view of the provisions of Sections 32, 34 and 60 of the Registeration Act and in view of observations of this Court in the matter of Jasvir Singh (supra) I find that strong presumption is attached in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants about the genuineness execution and registeration of the gift deeds in question. RSA No.2720 of 1987 (O&M) 7 11. In view of Sections 32, 34 and 60 of the Registeration Act plaintiffs are not supposed to produce any other evidence to corroborate the presumption attached with the registeration certificate. Burden was on the defendants to disprove the contents of the registeration certificate. Defendants have not produced even a single witness to prove that Sawan Singh has converted himself into a Sanyasi and was not seen in the Village. Since burden of proof was not on the plaintiffs, hence, findings of First Appellate Court that plaintiffs could not prove alleged gift deed becomes wrong. In view of the above substantial question of law are answered in favour of the appellants and against the defendants. 12. In view of the answer to substantial question of law No.1 and 2, judgment and decree of First Appellate Court cannot be sustained. Present appeal is allowed. Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court dated 27.5.1987 is set aside. Judgment passed by learned trial Court is hereby restored. Parties shall bear their own costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 30.3.2010 sharmila