RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Gafur Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan Civil Writ Petn. No. 5480 of 1994 (Rajendra Balia, J.) 25.02.2003 ORDER Rajendra Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts giving rise to present writ petition are that the sale deed purported to be ex ecuted by Smt. Shahjadi Khatu W/o Salim Khan in favour of the petitioners on 12th M ay, 1993 and on that very day it was produced before the Sub-Registrar, Phalodi. 3. The Sub- Registrar made the following endorsement on the presentation disclosing that an enqui ry required to be made under Section 34, was made by him about the due execution of document: 4. After the aforesaid endorsement was made, vide order dated 14th June, 1993 the Su b- Registrar, Phalodi, refused to register the document for the reason that he does not con sider it in the interest of justice to register the said document. The entire order reads as under : (Vernacular matter omitted.........Ed.) 5. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid two orders of Sub- Registrar before the Registrar, Jodhpur, on 17-7- 1993 and preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondent Shahajadi Kathu th at appeal is barred by time. 6. The Registrar, Jodhpur, while dismissing the appeal on merit held the appeal within limitation by referring to chronology of events, which is relevant for the present purpo ses also, held that the appellants before the Registrar, who are petitioners before this C ourt, had no knowledge about the order dated 14-6-1993 until 2nd July, 1993. 7. The chronology, which followed the presentation of document before the Sub- Registrar for registration and endorsement on the document as aforesaid is that on 16- 5- 1993, Smt. Shahajadi Khatu lodged an FIR alleging that Salim Khan has got the sale d eed executed by her by misrepresenting that she has to execute certain documents for securing old age pension. Thus, Salim Khan has procured, by misrepresenting; her sig nature/thumb impression on the sale deed transferring her land, which she never inten ded to sell. She also alleged in the FIR that she has not received any consideration and has not parted with the possession of the land in question. 8. The petitioner had filed an application seeking release on bail on 26-8- 1993 only. Prior to that on 2-7- 1993 when he was informed about the order of refusal to register the document, he app lied for the copy thereof on that very day and after obtaining the copy, has filed the ap peal against said order on 17-3-1993 before the Registrar. 9. These orders are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 10. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that document Ann exure 1, which was duly executed and stamped, was presented by the executrix herself before the Sub-Registrar and the due execution of document was verified by the Sub- Registrar as required under Section 34 of the Indian Registration Act by obtaining affir mation from Smt. Shahajadi Khatu herself, who was present and identified by her law yer Mohanlal before the Sub- Registrar. This fact is apparent from the endorsement made by the Sub- Registrar on the document on 12-5- 1993 at 8.40 pm. She was identified by Mohanlal Saran, Advocate at Phalodi and it als o bears the endorsement which is followed with photograph and thumb impression of t he executrix, who had appeared before the Sub-Registrar. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that once enquiry under Section 34 was made and execution of document was admitted by the executrix in the presence of Sub - Registrar, he was under an obligation to register the document in terms of Section 60. Learned counsel urged that the Sub- Registrar or Registrar has no jurisdiction to make an enquiry into the genuineness of t he document and genuineness of transaction nor about correctness of statements made in such documents. When on 12-5- 1993 the document was presented for registration before the Sub- Registrar by the executrix herself and the execution of document was not denied by th e executrix before the Sub- Registrar, its registration could not have been refused by the Sub-Registrar. 12. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passe d by the Sub-Registrar on 14-6- 1993 refusing to register the document, was in total breach of principles of natural just ice. Once the document was presented and duly verified and endorsement was made o n the date of presentation itself, no notice of any suspicion, if any, entertained by the S ub- Registrar about the document was given to the petitioners nor any alleged enquiry was conducted after notice to the petitioners or in their presence. The order dated 14-6- 1993 itself shows that he has completed the requisite enquiry under Section 34 in the p resence of executrix herself, at the time of presentation of document on 12-5- 1983, which is evident from the endorsement on the document, yet on a specious grou nd he did not consider it to be in the interest of justice to register the document and ref used registration. The order does not disclose any reason for non- registration. The order is not only without affording opportunity of hearing to the petiti oners, where rights are vitally affected by such non- registration, but is also non speaking order. These defects in the original proceedings c ould not have been remedied by the Appellate Authority. 13. Be that as it may, the appellants referred an appeal under Section 72 of the Registr ation Act before the Registrar, who vide his order dated 25-10- 1994 has dismissed the appeal for the two reasons. Firstly, that respondent No. 2, Sub- Registrar, Phalodi, has conducted an enquiry in the issue relating to agreement to sale, delivery of possession and the receipt of consideration by the transferor and found tha t neither the possession of the land has been delivered nor consideration has passed on to Mst. Shahajadi Khatu nor any such agreement has taken place and secondly, in rela tion to same document an FIR was lodged by the executants on 16-5- 1993. After investigation into the allegations made in the FIR, the challan has been fil ed by the Investigating Agency in which the petitioners are also named as accused alo ng with one Sultan Khan and therefore, the order refusing registration was justified. 14. Learned counsel contends that all the alleged proceedings of enquiry, if any, and fi ndings recorded in such enquiry, were beyond the competence of the Registrar or Sub- Registrar and to give finding thereon. Except where execution of document is denied, where the executant claims that the document has been obtained by the deceit or the tr ansaction was fraudulent, the same cannot be ground for Sub- Registrar to refuse to register the document, because the Registering Officers are not c oncerned with the validity of documents. The only duty cast on the Registering Officer in such event is to put a note about such assertion or denials be made in the endorsem ent as required under Section 58 of the Registration Act. That being the position, the S ub- Registrar was under an obligation to register the document in question, which was pres ented by executrix, whose identity was verified by the Registrar and she has acknowle dged before the Sub- Registrar due execution of the document by herself in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act. Under circumstance the document could not have been refuse d to register by the Sub-Registrar. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents- complainants, on the other hand, has urged that the transaction in question is a fraudul ent one and the lady, who is an illiterate person and she was made to sign certain docu ments by representing that the same are for securing old age pension and her thumb i mpressions were obtained on the sale deed. In view of these allegations, which were p rima facie found to be valid, the document has not been rightly registered by the Sub- Registrar and the order of Sub-Registrar has rightly been affirmed by the Registrar. 16. It was urged by Sri G.M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents that since the challan was filed by the police for prosecuting the petitioners for committing forgery a nd cheating Mst. Shahajadi Khatu, prima facie case of forgery is established against th e petitioners so also the findings reached by the Sub- Registrar in his report, which is in consonance with the findings reached by the Investi gating Agency, make the transaction of sale having been entered with petitioner seriou sly suspect and in these circumstances, the Registering Officer had necessary power to refuse registration under Section 71 of the Indian Registration Act. Therefore, the ord er passed by the Sub- Registrar as affirmed by the Registrar cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 17. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that an appeal li es against the order of Sub- Registrar under Section 72 refusing to direct registration of document in question, und er Section 77 the remedy of petitioners was to file a civil suit within 30 days of makin g of the order of refusal seeking a decree directing documents to be registered in such office after it is duly presented for registration within 30 days after passing of such dec ree. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the writ petition is not maintainable a nd the petitioners ought to have filed civil suit for issuing such direction. 18. So far as maintainability of writ petition is concerned, it may be noticed that the wr it petition was filed on 10-11- 1994 within 60 days of order passed by the Registrar when filing of suit under Section 77 was still within limitation. In the first instance, a show cause notice was issued bef ore admission to the respondents on 5-12- 1994. In response to notice, the respondents appeared and in the presence of learned c ounsel for both the parties the petition was admitted on 6-5- 1996. The order of admission has been recorded in the file of Civil Misc. Stay Applica tion, which has been filed along with the writ petition. 19. Therefore, at this distance of time after the petition has been admitted after notice t o the respondents and hearing them the preliminary objection for non- suiting the petitioners merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of sui t cannot be sustained. 20. The principle is well settled that existence of alternative remedy is not absolute bar and does not affect the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The question of availability e qually efficacious alternative remedy for securing relief claimed in the writ petition is germane for considering the question whether this Court ought to exercise extraordinar y jurisdiction in a particular case. However, two well known exceptions to the general rule in the matter of exercise of discretion are where the impugned order has been pass ed by the authority having no jurisdiction to make such order; and where the impugne d orders have been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. Ordinarily, in such circumstance existence of an alternative remedy is not considered a valid ground for r ejecting the petition on that ground. However, the two exceptions generally required, a re not the exhaustive list of cases where the Court will or will not exercise its extraordi nary jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is provided. It still depends on the facts a nd circumstances of each case. 21. The principle is also well settled that notwithstanding the existence of an alternativ e remedy, if the petition has been admitted by the Court after hearing the parties and re mained pending for considerable long period which renders the alternative remedy out of reach or makes it inefficacious. 22. In this connection, reference may be made to L. Hirday Narain v. Income- tax Officer, Bareilly, 1 23. In the present case, it is apparent that not only the petition was admitted, but the pe tition has been admitted after due notice to the respondents and hearing them. The pre sumption is that in spite of preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petiti on, because of the availability of suit as an alternative remedy, this Court has admitted the petition, which was pending for hearing for more than two years. 24. Even otherwise, the remedy of regular civil suit for the limited purpose of seeking direction to register the document under Section 77 in the facts and circumstances of t he present case cannot be considered to be equally efficacious alternative remedy, whi ch may persuade this Court not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to examine the issue raised in the petition on merit at this stage particularly when parties have argued on merits of the case. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. G.M. Kha n, learned counsel for the respondents, is overruled. 25. Coming to the merit of the case, it will be apposite to examine the scheme of regist ration of documents envisaged under the Registration Act and Rules framed there und er. It may be understood at the outset that the registration by itself neither creates any r ight nor affect any right, but is only envisaging procedure by which any document is r egistered. Where a transaction is required by law to be reduced to writing and such wri ting is compulsorily required to be registered, the registration is the end stage of proce dure for completion of transaction. The document or documents, which are not compul sorily registrable, may also be required to be registered at the option of parties to such documents. In that sense, the provisions of Registration Act are primarily the part of pr ocedure and not of sub-stantative law. 26. The object of registering a document is not to affect the transaction, but to give not ice to the world that such a document has been executed to prevent fraud and forgery a nd to secure a reliable and comparable account of all transactions effecting the title of the property. The principle was stated long back by Privy Council in Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari Co., 2 and Tilakdhari Lal v. Khedan Lal, 3 27. For the present purposes, the relevant provisions to be considered are how the doc ument, which is presented before the Registrar, is required to be dealt with by the Regi stering Officer. 28. Section 32 provides who can present the document for registration. In the present c ase there is no dispute about the fact that the document was presented by a person com petent to present it. In fact, the document has been presented by executrix of document herself. There is no violation of that part of the provision. According to Sub- Registrar the document has been presented by none other than respondent No. 4 Shahj adi Khatu W/o Salim Khan, who has executed the said document. 29. Section 33 is a provision ancillary to Section 32, which provides in what circumsta nces and what sort of powers of attorney are to be recognized for the purposes of Secti on 32. As the executrix herself has presented the document, this provision also does no t require to be dealt with in detail. 30. Section 34 requires that Registering Officer before registering a document must sat isfy himself that the person executing such document or their representatives, assign o r authorized agents appear before the Registering Officer within the time allowed for p resentation and on their appearance the Registering Officer shall enquire whether or n ot such document was executed by the person or persons by whom it purports to have been executed. He also has to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him and alleging that he has executed the document and in the case of any pers on appearing as a representative, assign or agent to satisfy himself about the right of s uch person so to appear. 31. Section 35 details the procedure, which is to be followed by the Registering Autho rity when a document is admitted to be executed or denied to be executed respectively. Section 35(1)(a) requires the Registering Officer to satisfy himself whether person ap pearing before him as an executant, admits the execution of document and in that case the Registering Officer is under an obligation to register the document as directed und er Sections 58 to 61 inclusively. 32. Sub- section (2) of Section 35 authorizes the Registering Officer in order to satisfy himself t hat the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, examine any one present in his office. 33. Sub- section (3) of Section 35 deals with the case where any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution or the person executing the document app ears to be dead. In that event the Registering Officer is required to refuse to register th e document. Admittedly, in the present case, when the executrix appeared before the R egistering Officer on 12-5-1993, she was identified by a lawyer before the Sub- Registrar and the Sub- Registrar has recorded admission of executrix that she has executed the document. Th ere was no room for the Sub-Registrar thereafter to have taken recourse to sub- section (3). Moreover, on the basis of the impugned order also it was not a case where the person by whom the document purports to be executed has denied its execution bef ore Registering Officer or for that any other contingency envisaged under sub- section (3) of Section 35 existed, which could enable the Sub- Registrar to refuse registration of the document in question under it. 34. As it has been noticed while considering the facts that Smt. Shahjadi Khatu has, af ter about 5 days of presentation of document for registration before the Sub- Registrar, lodged an FIR alleging that the document has been fraudulently and deceitf ully got executed from her by representing that she is to sign/thumb papers for securin g pension for her, but instead her property has been got transferred. This also suggests that document in question was executed by her. Section 35 does not confer any jurisdi ction on the Registering Officer to hold enquiry on such allegations leveled after or be fore the procedure of Section 34 has been completed. The effect of completing the req uired procedure under Section 34 is that the document presented for registration is ad mitted to registration. 35. It is noticed above that under Section 35, once a document is admitted to be execut ed by a person by whom it purports to be executed by asking him/her when he/she is p resent in person before the Registering Authority, he is required to act in accordance w ith Sections 58 to 61 of the Registration Act. This takes us to examine the provisions o f Sections 58 to 61 to find whether an enquiry, which has been undertaken by the Regi stering Officer, is envisaged under those provisions. 36. Sections 58 to 61 form the scheme of the procedure on admitting the document to r egistration. Section 58 requires that after the document has been admitted to registratio n, there shall be endorsed upon it from time to time the following particulars namely; ( i) the signatures and addition of every person admitting the execution of the document, and, if such execution has been admitted by the representative, assign or agent of any person, the signature and addition of such representative, assign or agent, (ii) the signa ture and addition of every person examined in reference to such document under any o f the provisions of the Act and (iii) any payment of money or delivery of goods made i n the presence of the registering officer in reference to the execution of the document, and any admission of receipt of consideration, in whole or in part, made in his presenc e in reference to such execution. 37. Importantly, sub- section (2) of Section 58 mandates that if any person admitting the execution of docu ment refuses to endorse the same, the Registering Officer shall register the document and shall endorse the copy of such refusal. Apparently, refusal of a person to endorse t he particulars to be entertained after entered in the document after to be registered whe re the person has admitted its execution before the Sub- Registrar cannot be considered as an impediment in its registering. 38. On the other hand, the expression used by the legislature makes it imperative that such refusal to endorse cannot be a ground for postponing or refusing the completion o f registration of such documents which has crossed stages of Sections 34 and 35. 39. Section 59 requires the Registering Officer to affix the date and is signature to all e ndorsements made under Sections 52 and 58, relating to the same document and made in his presence on the same day. That is duty cast on the Registering Officer to put his hand along with the date on which the endorsement stated in Sections 58 to 61 has be en made. Such affixation of his signature and date is not envisaged to be postponed for a later date. 40. Section 60 mandates that after such of the provisions of Sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 as apply to any document presented for registration have been complied with, the Reg istering Officer shall endorse thereon a certificate containing the word "registered," to gether with the number and page of the book in which the document has been copied a nd such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the Registering Officer, and sh all then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly regi stered in the manner provided by this Act. 41. Section 60 clearly goes to show that after the document has reached the stage of pa ssing requirement of Sections 34, 35, 58 and 59, the Registering Authority has been p ut under obligation to endorse the certificate on the document, which is before him by writing the word "registered" together the number and page of the book in which the d ocument has been copied. 42. Section 61 is follow up action to Section 60, which requires that the endorsements and certificate referred to in Sections 59 and 60 are required to be copied into the marg in of the Register Book and the copy of the map or the plan mentioned in Section 21 is to be filed in Book No. 1. On copying of such endorsement and certificate in the Regi ster Book, the registration of document is deemed to be complete and thereafter, the d ocument is to be returned to the person as a duly registered document. 43. The aforesaid scheme of the procedure required to be adhered to by the Registerin g Authority when a document is presented before him for registration, does not envisa ge any such enquiry into the genuineness and validity of the transaction or correctness of facts stated in the document as to consideration or any other facts about genuinenes s of such document. In fact requirement to satisfy about execution of document by the person purporting to have executed the document on presentation, satisfied the fact tha t such a document has been executed by the person appears to have executed the docu ment. Circumstance in which such document has been executed relate to validity of tra nsaction evidenced through such document, which is not the domain of Registering Au thority to enquire. 44. The Registering Officer after recording satisfaction about due execution of docume nt presented before him, is required to endorse every act that has been transacted in hi s presence at the same time on the document namely; admission or refusal of person w ho purports to have executed the document made before him, the payment of consider ation, if any, which has been made in his presence. The identification of any of the per sons appearing before him by any person in his office is also to be endorsed on the doc ument. 45. In other words, he has to faithfully record on the document what is being transacte d in his office and his endorsement and copy of document must find place in the Regis ter Book as a testimony of such transactions having taken place. The procedure prescri bed for Registering Officer to follow on receipt of document for registration does not p rovide for any such enquiry into the genuineness of document or the transaction as has been undertaken by the Sub- Registrar or the Registrar in the present case. 46. This is further fortified from the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 framed in exe rcise of power under Section 69. The Rule 39, which is relevant for the present purpos es, reads as under: 39. Registering Officers not concerned with validity of documents. - Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned wit h the validity of documents brought to them for registration and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as under:- (1) That the executants was dealing with property not belonging to him; Provided that the Registering Officer shall not register the document unless he s atisfied himself that the property does not belong to the Govt. or any Local Bod y; (2) That the instrument infringed the rights of third person not parties to the tran saction; (3) That the transaction was fraudulent (4) That the executant was not agreed to certain conditions of the document ; (5) That the executant was not acquainted with the conditions of the document ; (6) That the executant declared that he had been deceived into executing; and (7) That the executant is blind and cannot count. These and such like are matters for decision it necessary, by competent courts of law, and registering officers, as such, have nothing to do with them. If the document be pre sented in a proper manner, by a competent person, at the proper office, within the time allowed by law and if the registering officer be satisfied that the alleged executants is the person he represent himself to be, and if such person admits execution, the register ing officer shall make a note of such objections of the kinds mentioned in grounds (1) to (7) above, as may be brought to his notice in the endorsement required by Section 5 8. 47. The aforesaid rule in unequivocal terms denies the Registering Officer any authorit y to hold any enquiry into the question whether the transaction was fraudulent or whet her the executant declared that he had been deceived into execution of such document. Whether the transaction is fraudulent or whether the document has been executed by deceit, is not the business of Registering Authority to enquire. Clause 3 and clause 6 o f Rule 39 invites special attention in that regard. 48. Rule 40 envisages that where a person admits the execution of a document, but de nies the receipt in whole or part of the consideration recited therein, the registration sh all not be refused because of such denial, but a note of the denial shall be made in the endorsement required by Section 58. 49. Rule 41 envisages that after the presentation of a document for registration, if the e xecutant does not appear or refuses to enforce his attendance under Part VII of the Act, it may be returned, if claimed back or if it not claimed back even after the expiry of fo ur months. The order of refusal may be recorded thereon. 50. Rule 42 significantly mandates positively where an executant appears and admits execution and his identity is established, the registration should be completed even tho ugh one or both of the parties may after this stage, desire to withdraw the document fo r registration. Rule 42 reads as under: 42. Registration to be completed necessarily. - (1) If the executant appears and admits execution and his identity is established , the registration should be completed even though one or both of the parties ma y after this stage, desire to withdraw the document for registration. If after admi ssion of execution, the executant refuse or neglects to sign the endorsement, the registering officer should note this refusal prescribed in Section 58 of the Act. 51. The scheme of Rules 39 to 42 clearly indicates that the Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to enquire into the facts in which the Sub- Registrar and the Registrar have indulged themselves in the present case. The rules fr amed under the statute, are part of the statute and binds the implementing agency and the implementing agency had no jurisdiction to ignore the mandate of rules and to act i n contravention thereto. In the present case, the endorsement made by the Sub- Registrar on 12-5- 1993 quoted in exten so hereinabove, shows that the document has been presented by t he executrix herself, the Registering Officer has enquired and satisfied himself whethe r the executant has executed the document and has also satisfied himself about the ide ntity of person, who has appeared before him as the person executing the said docume nt, who was duly identified by a lawyer. Therefore, the compliance of Section 34 was f ully made, is apparent. 52. It may be noticed that at no stage the identity of person appearing before the Sub- Registrar on 12-4- 1993 as executant of the document has been challenged by anyone nor any aspersions have been made against the Sub- Registrar. 53. On the other hand, the Sub-Registrar in his order himself says that on 12-5- 1993 when the document was presented on that very day, he has completed the enquir y about the due execution of the document by the executrix and has put endorsement a long with his seal on that document. It is only after these formalities have been comple ted and he satisfied himself about due execution of document and identity of person pr esented before him as an executrix of the document that he on his own entertained sus picion looking to the age of the executrix and thought it fit to hold an enquiry. In the or der Annexure 2, apart from the aforesaid reason for holding enquiry nothing has been stated for assuming jurisdiction to hold the alleged enquiry. It does not reveal that any objection was received by him against the registration from any quarter or whether the executrix has denied execution of document or requested him to refuse to registration for any reason. The finding, if any, recorded by him, during the alleged enquiry held b y him, on his own does not find place in the order. He has refused to register the docu ment on the spacious ground 'in the interest of justice.' 54. However, from the copy of document along with endorsement as well as the order (Annexure 2), it is apparent that the procedure required under Section 34 was duly foll owed on 12-5- 1993 when the document was presented . Nothing has been stated that such endorsem ent was not made by Sub-Registrar on 12-5- 1993 or that the executrix has not presented such document before the Sub- Registrar. It was only afterwards that looking to the age of the executant and surround ing circumstances, he entertained some doubt, we are left to guess as to in what contex t the age of executant, who was about 50 years at the time the document was executed, and in what circumstance the Sub-Registrar thought it just to hold enquiry. The Sub- Registrar does not disclose where he came to know about the surrounding circumstanc es relating to execution of document when it is nobody's case that anybody has raised any objection to registration of said document before him or even the executant, who h as admitted due execution before him has raised any objection thereto before him ther eafter. He could not at the time of making endorsement, imagined about complaint file d on 17-5-1993 about transferring her property through misrepresentation. 55. The Sub- Registrar is not given jurisdiction to hold roving enquiry on his own suspicion about th e genuineness of facts stated in the document about which no objections were raised b efore him and they do not relate to ancillary subjects in respect of which a Registering Officer can have jurisdiction to enquire into, like the due payment of stamp duty under the Stamp Act. Once the Sub- Registrar, who has recorded the statement of executrix that she has duly executed the document, which was presented by her on 12-5- 1993 and about whose identity he satisfied himself by securing identity of the executri x through lawyer and has put his signatures and endorsement thereon, he had no autho rity to hold a roving enquiry into due execution thereof or material relating to contents of document sought to be registered by him as a Court of enquiry. 56. Apparently, the Sub- Registrar or the Registrar has acted in contravention of Rule 39 read with Rule 42 whil e refusing to register the document even after the same was presented by the person by whom it purported to be executed, she appeared before the Sub- Registrar and the execution of document was admitted by her. Her identity was verifie d through the Advocate on 12-5- 1993. As per endorsement document was read over and explained to her, and she adm itted to have executed the same. No other objection as to delivery of possession of the property in question or consideration was raised before the Sub- Registrar nor it is the case of the respondents that the Sub- Registrar was ever represented about the matters about which she has lodged an FIR. 57. In these proceedings, it is not even the case of the respondents that endorsement d ated 12-5-1993 made by the Sub- Registrar was erroneous or does not depict the correct happenings before the Sub- Registrar. In fact, the order Annexure 2 itself records the said endorsement made by th e Sub- Registrar, was made on completing the required formalities about verifying the identit y of person, executing the same and that it was executed by the said person. As per the Scheme of the Registration Act and Rules framed there under there was no option ther eafter with the Sub- Registrar, but to register the same. Clearly, it is a case in which the Sub- Registrar has later on changed his mind and passed the impugned order of refusing to register the document on wholly irrelevant considerations and by entering into the fiel d of enquiry over which he has no jurisdiction to traverse. 58. One can only guess that the course has been adopted by the Sub- Registrar because of the FIR lodged by Mst. Shahjadi Khatu 5 days after the documen t in question was presented before Sub- Registrar and endorsement was made thereon on 12-5- 1993. The grounds for lodging FIR were that her property has been got transferred by obtaining her signatures/thumb impression by representing to her that it relates to her pension papers. Nowhere she implicated the Sub- Registrar , who has endorsed on 12- 5- 1993 that she has admitted the execution of document after the same was read over an d explained to her. Even on FIR, the allegation does not travel beyond the one envisag ed under Rules 39 and 40. These allegations for the reasons discussed above do not gi ve Sub- Registrar jurisdiction (sic) the document which has been admitted to be executed by e xecutrix. 59. At this stage, learned counsel placing strong reliance on Section 71 of the Registra tion Act, urges that, Sub- Registrar has jurisdiction to refuse to register the document which gives him a wide di scretion and power to refuse on any ground other than for denial of execution by the p erson also, who purports to be executant of the document. 60. Section 71 of the Registration Act cannot be read in isolation from the Scheme of t he Act. The statute has made provisions laying down the circumstances in which the R egistering Officer can refuse to register a document, except on the ground that the pro perty to which it relates is not situate within his sub- district. That is to say that the Sub- Registrar is not empowered to register the document relating to property situated beyo nd his territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, under Section 20(1) the Registering Officer ha s been given discretion to refuse to accept for registration any document in which any interlineations or alteration appears, unless the persons executing such document, attes t with their signatures or initials, such interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. I n case the Registering Officer decides to register any document, which has interlineati ons, blanks, erasures or alterations at the time of registering the same, he is required to make a note in the register of such interlineations, blanks, erasures or alternations. Th at is to ensure authenticity of the document registered as on the date of registration and to guard against future interpolation in the documents. 61. Section 35(3) is yet another contingency envisaged under the provisions of the Act , which entitles the Registering Authority to refuse to register the document. The conti ngencies under sub- section (3) of Section 35 are where (1) any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or (ii) any such person appears to be registering offic er to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or (iii) any person by whom the document purpo rts to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution. 62. Pausing here a while, the Sub- Registrar in its order Ex. 2 had said that 'looking to her age and surrounding circumsta nce, he thought it fit to hold an enquiry into the genuineness of document'. The circum stance, which gives the Registering Officer jurisdiction to refuse to register a documen t on that ground are where any such person appears to be minor, an idiot and lunatic. A dmittedly, in the present case, the executrix was not minor, she was a lady of about 50 years at the time of execution of document nor she appears to be lunatic at the time of presentation nor there is any whisper in the order that any of the conditions mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 35, exists. 63. Be that as it may, Section 35(3) is another provision pointing out the circumstance s in which the Registering Officer is entitled to refuse to register the document. Sub- section (2) of Section 71 envisages that no Registering Officer shall accept for registra tion a document so endorsed unless and until under the provisions hereinafter containe d, the document is directed to be registered. The power under Section 71 vesting with t he Sub- Registrar to refuse to register the document is not unanalyzed or unbridled to hold enq uiry into every aspect of the matter between the parties or the dispute as to the genuine ness of transaction of the circumstance in which the document was executed, de hors t he statute. The Registering Officer including Sub- Registrar is to act within the domain of statute to fulfill the object of the statute and no t to travel beyond it. 64. It may further be noticed that Section 71(1) requires, except on the ground that pro perty to which it relates is not situate within the sub- district of the Sub- Registrar, when he refuses to register the document and record his reasons for such or der in his Book No. 2. It spells out that where denial to register a given document is no t that property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of Sub- Registrar, he must record reasons for the same and order must show which of the conti ngencies on the existence of which he is authorized to refuse registration under the pro visions of statute exist in such event. The Registering Authority is a creature of statute and cannot travel beyond the limits set by the statute itself. 65. Where the Registration Act provides certain contingencies in which the Registerin g Officer is enabled to refuse to register a document presented before him for registrati on and also provides by a separate provision that authority refusing to register any doc ument, must record his reasons, therefore, can lead to only one conclusion that such re ason must relate to one or more contingencies envisaged under the Act, which empow ers the Registering Officer to refuse to register a document. Such a provision cannot b e read in a manner to confer an additional power of general nature making specific pro vision in that regard nugatory and redundant. Section 71 clearly postulates that authori ty of a Registering Officer in refusing to register a document under the statute is subje ct to fair procedure. The order must be reasoned. Except in the case of refusal founded on denial of its execution by the executant the orders are appealable. 66. Therefore, Section 71 in the context is part of procedure to be followed by Sub- Registrar in refusing to register a document as provided under the statute. 67. In this connection, reference may be made to Mahaliram Singhania v. Upendranat h Pandey, 4 wherein the High Court said that there is no provision in the Act empower ing a Registrar to refuse registration of a document on the ground of undervaluation or to enquire into the correctness of the valuation given in the document. 68. Reference in this connection may be made to Bench decision of this Court in Jeew an Ram v. State of Rajasthan,5 . In this case the Court said (Para 4) : "it was no part of the duty of the Sub- Registrar to go outside the powers conferred on him under Sections 34 and 35, o f Registration Act and such provisions of other laws which have been made defi nitely supplemental to the Registration Act. Sections 34 and 35, Registration Ac t provide what a registering officer has to see before registering a document, Bri efly speaking, he has to see that the document is presented in the manner prescr ibed by the Registration Act and by a person authorized to present it and before an officer authorized to register it. Before registering a document, the registerin g officer has to enquire whether or not the document was executed by the perso n by whom it purports to have been executed. He has also to satisfy himself as t o the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have ex ecuted the document. In the case of any person appearing as a representative, as sign or agent, he has further to satisfy himself of the right of such person so as t o appear. Thereafter, he cannot refuse to register the document except on the gro unds mentioned in Section 35(3), Registration Act, or under the provisions of an y other law which has been definitely made supplemental to the Registration Ac t. It is not the business of the registering officer to see whether a particular docu ment is against any other law in force for the time being if the conditions prescri bed for registration under Sections 34 and 35, Registration Act or any suppleme ntal law are satisfied". 69. Apparently, the impugned order does not satisfy the touch stone of valid order in te rms of the aforesaid principle. 70. The order, which has been quoted in extensor hereinabove does not show any reas on which can emanate from the statute, which confers jurisdiction on the Registering Officer to refuse to register the document. 71. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the impugned order by Sub- Registrar has been passed beyond his jurisdiction merely by entertaining suspicion ab out the correctness of facts stated in the document that too much late after requirement s of Secs. 34 and 35 were duly complied with and endorsement to that effect was mad e on the document on 12-5-93. 72. After the document was presented before him by the executrix about whose identit y he satisfied himself. She has admitted execution of document before him. After the d ue execution of document was admitted before the Sub-Registrar on 12-5- 93, there was no room for the Sub-Registrar to invoke the provisions of sub- section (3) of Section 35 or for that matter to go into the question of genuineness of the transaction or question whether the document has been got executed by the person co ncerned through deceit. The said enquiry is not envisaged under any of provisions of t he statute and has been specifically prohibited under Rules 39 and 40. The impugned orders are in breach of mandate of the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules framed there under. 73. Once the requirements of Sections 34 and 35 are satisfied and the case does not fal l u/Sections 34 and 35, the Registering Officer is under an obligation to register the sa me except if he is able to point out any grounds mentioned in Section 35(3) or under a ny other provisions of Registration Act or any other law supplemental to the Registrati on Act. It is not the business of the Registering Officer to see whether a document is a gainst any other law in force for the time being if the conditions prescribed for registra tion under Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act of supplemental law are satisfied . The genuineness of transaction, document and correctness of facts stated in the docu ment are not the matters in which the Registering Officer can enquire into and refuse r egistration of the document presented before him. 74. Apart from the aforesaid apparent lack of jurisdiction and the impugned orders bei ng contrary to the provisions of law, the orders have been passed in patent breach of pr inciples of natural justice by collecting the material at the back of the affected parties and without even giving them opportunity of hearing or making available to them the material relied against them. 75. It may be relevant to notice here that after presentation and admission of execution of document the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners vide FIR filed o n 16th May, 1993, which appears to have weighed heavily with the Registering Office r in referring to register the document, has resulted in acquittal of the petitioners by th e trial Court. The judgment dated 25-10- 94 has been placed on record by the petitioners. The said judgment reveals that Devila l Sub- Registrar and Mohanlal counsel, who has identified Smt. Shahjadi Khatu before the S ub- Registrar had been relied on by the prosecution and their statements are in consonance with the endorsement made on the document on 12-5-93. 76. I am further informed that leave to appeal against the said judgment has since been granted by this Court and the appeal is pending in this Court. 77. The subsequent desire of the executant to withdraw from the transaction for the rea sons stated by her, which can be duly agitated for getting the relief before appropriate Civil Court/Criminal Court cannot clothe the Registering Authority with the jurisdictio n to refuse to register the document when duly presented and the provisions of Section s 34 and 35 in respect thereof have been duly satisfied even before the FIR was lodged . The other circumstance, which is relevant to notice is that no complaint whatsoever h as been made by the respondent No. 4, who had admitted to have executed that docum ent before the Sub- Registrar or Registrar at any stage requesting him not to register the document. 78. In these circumstances, the petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the S ub-Registrar on 14-6- 93 (Annexure 2) and the order passed by the Registrar on appeal on 25-10- 95 (Annexure 3) are quashed and the Sub- Registrar is directed to proceed with the registration of the document in question, whic h is stated to be still in possession of the Registering Authority and has not been return ed to the presenter of the document as per statement of learned Counsel for Smt. Shahj adi Khatu. 79. It is made clear that any observations made above in relation to power of Registeri ng Authority to refuse to register the document presented has no reflection on the meri t of the allegations leveled against the petitioners by the respondent No. 4 so as to affe ct the pending criminal appeal or to affect any other proceedings that the parties may t ake recourse to for getting their civil rights decided. 80. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. Cases Referred. 1. AIR 1971 SC 33 2. AIR 1919 PC 79 3. AIR 1921 PC 112 4. ((19961) ILR Pat 879) (sic) 5. AIR 1954 Raj 53