1980CLC 616 (PLP)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners presented a sale deed dated 3-12-1977 for registration before Sub-Registrar, Gujranwala respondent No. 12 which purported to have been executed by respondents No. 1 and 2 arid Barkat Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3 to

11. The Sub-Registrar summoned the respondents and the respondent No. 2 denied the execution of this document so the registration was refused. An application under section 13 of the Registration Act was then moved before the respondent No. 13 whereupon the learned counsel for that any respondent asserted that the document was forged and claimed that the respondents had neither signed nor made any thumb-impressions on the sale-deed. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the parties, the respondent No. 13 came to conclusion that on account of the denial of execution of the sale-deed dated 3-12-1977 by respondents Nos. 1 to 11, the matter had become complicated and could be resolved after proper trial and examination of evidence by a civil Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as an application under section 73 of the Registration Act, 1908 had been presented before the Registrar, it was incumbent on him to have conducted an inquiry contemplated by section 74 of the Act.

4. On examination of the order dated 13-1-1979 passed by the Registrar in Gujranwala, respondent No. 13, in this case I have come to the conclusion that he had summoned the respondents Nos. 1 to I1 who denied the execution of the document. The plea advanced by the petitioners that no inquiry was conducted by the Registrar is unfounded. Section 74 of the Registration Act enables the Registrar only to make "inquiry" into the fact whether the document has been executed.

5. Under section 75 of the Act the Registrar is entitled to register a document only upon his being satisfied that (i) the document has been executed; and (ii) the requirements of law for the time being in force have been complied with on the part of the applicant or the person presenting the document for registration. In this case the Registrar, respondent No. 13, was possessed of no material on the basis of which it could be open to him to come to the conclusion that the sale-deed has been executed and could not, therefore, assume jurisdiction to order registration of the document.

6. On the other hand, section 77 enables a person aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, refusing to register a document under section 72 or 76 to file a civil suit for decree directing the document to be registered. Rather than moving the civil Court under section 77 which is empowred to frame issues, record evidence and decide the controversial question of fact, the petitioners have approached this Court for the sane relief without resolving the disputed questions of fact.

7. The questions for determination undoubtedly were disputed questions of fact as to the genuineness of the document, and the signatures of the vendors on the sale-deed. It is also a fact that one of the alleged executants of the document had already died. 8. 1 granted the learned counsel for the petitioners an adjournment to examine the question of law arising in this case and to cite any precedent to support the plea that once an application under section 73 has been resented and the alleged exctants of the document deny the fact of its execution or assert that their signatures on the document are forged, the Registrar is bound to frame issues, summon witnesses and after examination of the evidence record a finding as to whether the document vas executed within the meaning of section 75 of the Registration Act. The learned counsel has stated before me that he has not been able to find any authority despite his best efforts. 9. 1 am of the view that limited jurisdiction available to the Registration under the provisions of the Registration Act only enables him to "inquire into the fact whether the document has been executed and for the purpose he "may" summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses but the proceeding under subsection (4) of section 75 are not to extend beyond the scope of the "inquiry" contemplated by section 74(a) of the Act. I am not inclined to agree with the proposition that the Registrar is bound to conduct regular trial, frame issues, examine witnesses, hear arguments and decide the valuable right of the parties. In any case the provisions of subsection (4) of section 75 are discretionary and may be exercised by the Registrar in appropriate cases and in a case like the present where one of the executants is dead, the Registrar was justified in refusing to exercise his discretion under section 75(4) of the Act leaving the parties to have the complicated fact adjudicated by a civil Court.

10. Section 76 of the Registration Act, 1908 enjoins the Registrar refusing to direct registration of a document under section 72 or section 73 to pass an order recording the reason for such order. Subsection (2) of section 76 lays down that no appeal would lie from an order passed by the Registration under this section.

11. Section 77 of the Act, however, provides that where the Registration refuses to order registration of a document under section 72 or section 7 only person claiming under such document or his representative assign or agent may file a suit in the civil Court for a decree directing the document to be registered. 12. 1 am of the view that section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides an adequate alternate remedy. It would be open to the petitioner to urge all grounds in support of the plea for registration of the document which they have urged in the present writ petition. The civil Court may after examining A the evidence decide the disputed questions of facts.

13. It is well settled that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 would be exercised only if the High Court is satisfied that the petitioner has no other equally efficacious remedy available to him. In this case the peti tioners have an adequate remedy before the civil Court by a civil suit under section 77 of the Registration Act which perhaps is the only appropriate forum to decide the disputed and complicated questions of fact.

14. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed in limine. M. A. K. Petition dismissed.