IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 24, 2009 Zile Singh Chauhan ....Appellant Versus Asha Rani .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. First before the learned trial Court and then before the learned lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff/appellant lost in his suit, which he had filed for declaration that the order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the Registrar, Karnal, was illegal, null and void, and not binding upon his rights and the sale deed dated 23.12.2003 registered vide the said order be cancelled. He is now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the appellant, he had entered into an agreement to sell his plot measuring 429 sq. yards to the respondent on 4.5.2001. No date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as son of the appellant had obtained an injunction regarding alienation of the plot. Despite the same, the respondent and her husband started compelling him to get the sale deed executed and registered. He filed a suit against them in which ad-interim injunction was issued. Thereafter, the respondent and her husband R.S.A. No. 1611 of 2009 -2- fraudulently obtained his thumb impressions on the sale deed but he refused to get the sale deed registered. The respondent moved the Sub Registrar, Karnal, under Section 36 of the Registration Act(in short 'the Act') on which he was summoned. He submitted his reply stating all the facts. The Sub Registrar declined to register the sale deed. An appeal was then preferred by the respondent in which an order dated 13.11.2003 was passed by the Registrar, holding the execution of the sale deed valid. The order of the Registrar was invalid as the provisions of Sections 72 and 73 of the Act had not been complied with. Hence, the suit. Under Section 72 of the Act, the appeal to the Registrar lies from the order of the Sub Registrar, who had refused to register the document on grounds other than the denial of the execution. In the present case, the Sub Registrar had refused registration on the ground of denial of execution. In such a situation, Section 73 of the Act is attracted, which requires the Registrar, upon receiving an application from a person claiming under the document, to make an enquiry as to whether the document had been executed and whether the requirements of law stand complied with to entitle the registration. Such an enquiry was conducted by the Registrar by calling both the parties and hearing them. Such an enquiry did not require leading of evidence. It is the discretion of the Registrar to enquire into the matter in the manner he deems fit. As per the case of the defendant/respondent in her written statement, the plaintiff had appeared before the Sub Registrar and filed R.S.A. No. 1611 of 2009 -3- objections. On 30.6.2003 he gave an undertaking before the Sub Registrar to get the sale deed executed on 2.7.2003 and on that day he sought further adjournment for 8.7.2003 to get the same registered, but on the day fixed, he back-tracked. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither perverse nor suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellant, do not arise for determination. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 24, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1