1

ASSIGNMENT ON:

“REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS”
UNDER THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MRS. SUMANPREET KAUR VANSHIKA MOONG
ASST. PROFESSOR B.A.LL.B. 8TH SEM.
PURC, LUDHIANA ROLL NO. 62

SUBJECT: LAW OF REGISTRATION AND COURT FEE

ACT,1870.
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………3
II. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….4
III. WHEN TO REGISTER DOCUMENTS…………………………….…………4
IV. WHERE TO REGISTER DOCUMENTS……………………………………...5
V. WHO CAN APPLY TO REGISTER DOCUMENTS…………………………6
VI. COMMERCIAL AVIATION & TRAVEL & CO. V. VIMAL PANNALAL.10
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..12
 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who helped me complete this
project successfully.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my class teacher, Mrs. Isha Tiwari, for her
constant support, valuable guidance and encouragement throughout the process. She
inspired me to work hard and guided me whenever I faced any difficulties.
I would also like to acknowledge my classmates for their camaraderie and assistance
during the project.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support, for motivating me
and boosting my morale when I was stressed. Without their unconditional love and support
this project would not have been possible.

VANSHIKA MOONG
BALLB, 8TH SEM
 4

INTRODUCTION

I. WHAT IS REGISTRATION?
Registration is the process of recording a document with recognised officer and to safeguard
its original copies. Any document whether binding or non-binding shall be registered in a
required manner. Registration of every document is not necessary, but doing so affirms the
authenticity and helps in avoiding legal processes. Many people are not familiar with the
concept of registration and hence do not understand its importance in eyes of law. It is crucial
to be familiarised with registration and what it includes to avoid disputes.
There are two kinds of registration according to registration act 1908, namely, “mandatory
registration” and “optional registration”.

WHEN TO REGISTER DOCUMENT?

ACCORDING TO SECTION 23 OF THE ACT:

All the document except a will have to be presented for registration within four months from
the date of execution.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 24 OF THE ACT:

If a document is executed by several persons at different times, then the document has to be
presented for registration and re-registration within four months from the date of each
execution.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 25 OF THE ACT:

If due to any urgency or unavoidable incidents, any executed document or a copy of a decree
or order is not presented within four months, but it is presented after its expiry will be
accepted for registration provided that 10 times. The amount of registration fee is paid and
delay in presentation does not exceed four months.
[2] Application for such a step has to be made to sub registrar. Who will forward such
application to the registrar to whom he is subordinate. According to section 25 of the
registration act, 1908.
 5

ACCORDING TO SECTION 26 OFTHE ACT:

If a document is executed outside India by any or all of the parties and is presented after
expiry of four months, then it will be accepted for registration provided that it was executed
and presented for registration within four months and its arrival to India.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 27 OF THE ACT:

A will may at any time be presented for registeration or deposited in manner hereinafter
provided.

WHERE TO REGISTER DOCUMENTS?

ACCORDING TO SECTION 28 OF THE ACT:

In case of documents regarding immovable property, it shall be presented for registration in
the office of Sub-Registrar within whose district the property or part of it is located.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 29 OF THE ACT:

In case of all other documents, they shall be presented:-
1. In the office of Sub-Registrar in whose sub-district the document was executed; or
2. In the office of any other Sub-Registrar under State Government where all individuals
desire the document to be registered.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 30 OF THE ACT:

Any Registrar may in his discretion receive and register any document which might be
registered by any Sub-registrar subordinate to him.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 31 OF THE ACT:

The Officer authorized to register a document may on a special cause being shown also go to
the individual’s private residence who desires to present a document for registration or
deposit a will.
Provided that such officer may on special cause being shown attend at the residence of any
person desiring to present a document for registration or to deposit a will, and accept for
registration or deposit such document or will.
 6

WHO CAN APPLY FOR REGISTRATION?

ACCORDING TO SECTION 32 OF THE ACT:

Except in the cases mentioned in 5 [sections 31, 88 and 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
representive or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representative or
assign, duly authorised by power-of attorney executed and authenticated in manner
hereinafter mentioned.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 32A:

Every person presenting any document at the proper registration office under section 32 shall
affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document: Provided that where such
document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the passport size
photograph and fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the
document shall also be affixed to the document.]

ACCORDING TO SECTION 33 OF THE ACT:

(1) For the purposes of section 32, the following powers-of-attorney shall alone be
recognized, namely:—
(a) if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of 1
[India] in which this Act is for the time being in force, a power-of-attorney executed before
and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the
principal resides;
(b) if the principal at the time aforesaid 2 [resides in any part of India in which this Act is not
in force], a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by any Magistrate;
(c) if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in 1 [India], a power-of-attorney
executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, 3
[Indian] Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government:
Provided that the following persons shall not be required to attend at any registration-office
or Court for the purpose of executing any such power-of-attorney as is mentioned in clauses
(a) and (b) of this section, namely:—
(i) persons who by reason of bodily infirmity are unable without risk or serious
inconvenience so to attend;
(ii) persons who are in jail under civil or criminal process; and
(iii) persons exempt by law from personal appearance in court.
 7

[Explanation.—In this sub-section “India” means India, as defined in clause (28) of section 3
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897).]
(2) In the case of every such person the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate, as the case
may be, if satisfied that the power-of-attorney has been voluntarily executed by the person
purporting to be the principal, may attest the same without requiring his personal attendance
at the office or Court aforesaid.
(3) To obtain evidence as to the voluntary nature of the execution, the Registrar or Sub-
Registrar or Magistrate may either himself go to the house of the person purporting to be the
principal, or to the jail in which he is confined, and examine him, or issue a commission for
his examination.
(4) Any power-of-attorney mentioned in this section may be proved by the production of it
without further proof when it purports on the face of it to have been executed before and
authenticated by the person or Court hereinbefore mentioned in that behalf.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 34 OF THE ACT:

(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 authorised 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 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
SubRegistrar, 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.
 8

ACCORDING TO SECTION 35 OF THE ACT:

(1) (a) If all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering
officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the
person they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document,
or
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such
representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears
before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register
the document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.
(2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before
him are the persons they represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose contemplated
by this Act, examine any one present in his office.
(3) (a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or
(b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or
(c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his
representative or assign denies its execution,
the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying,
appearing or dead:
Provided that, where such officer is a Registrar, he shall follow the procedure prescribed in
Part XII: 1
[Provided further that the 2 [State Government] may, by notification in the 3 [Official
Gazette], declare that any Sub-Registrar named in the notification shall, in respect of
documents the execution of which is denied, be deemed to be a Registrar for the purposes of
this sub-section and of Part XII.]
 9

CASE LAWS

In Narinder Singh Rao v. Air Vice Marshal Mahinder Singh Rao (2013) Settled by
Supreme Court, the Appellant’s father wrote on a piece of paper that his wife would inherit
the property on his death. It was signed by a single witness and was not registered. After the
father’s death, his widow executed a will, transferring the entire property to only one of her
nine children. The aggrieved siblings challenged the mother’s will in court, stating that she
had not inherited the entire property because the father’s will was invalid. The argument was
accepted, stating that for a will to be valid, it must be attested by two witnesses. Besides, it
could not be held as a valid transfer of property as it was not registered under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908.
So, the Supreme Court held that the rule of succession would apply in dividing the property
as the father’s will was invalid. This case recapitulated two rules which have been clearly set
out in legislation. They are:
1. The proper attestation of wills and
2. The registration of documents.

In Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 2014), the Supreme
Court held that once a document is registered then authority is not open to cancel its
registration.
For this case, an application was moved by a man before the Sub-Registrar (Registration) to
cancel the registration of extinguishment deed executed by the Society cancelling an
allocation of the plot. Persecuted by the rejection of his application, on the ground that Sub
Registrar has no domain to cancel the enrollment of a registered document being referred to,
he moved toward Inspector General (Registration) which was in vain.
The High Court, on its writ petition, held that, since the Registering Officer selected the deed
acquainted with him for registration, his ability is exhausted and he would then advance
towards becoming functus officio (an officer or agency whose mandate has expired either
because of the arrival of an expiry date or because an agency has accomplished the purpose
for which it was created. When used in relation to a court, it may also mean whose duty or
authority has come to an end) and no vitality to appropriate the report under Section 33 of the
Act. This decision by the High Court was condemned in the Supreme Court.
The appeal in Part XII especially under Section 72 limits just to the refusal of Registering
Officer to register a document. It was similarly held that power given to Registrar under
Section 68 can’t be used to cross out registration of a registered document.
Moreover, the court observed that there is no express course of action in the Registration Act
or Rules bound by the State of Madhya Pradesh nor any circular issued by the competent
authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh with the goal that the extinguishment deed should
 10

bear the characteristics of both the vendor and the buyer and both must be accessible before
the Registering Officer when the document is presented for registration.

COMMERCIAL AVIATION & TRAVEL & CO. V. VIMAL PANNALAL

 Court Name: Supreme Court of India

 Case Name: Commercial Aviation & Travel Company & Ors vs Vimal Pannalal
 Petitioner: Commercial Aviation & Travel Company & Ors
 Respondent: Vimal Pannalal
 Equivalent Citations: 1988 AIR 1636, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 431
 Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J), Misra Rangnath
 Author: M Dutt
 Date of Judgment: 13 July 1988
 Acts Applied: The Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 and The Courts Fee Act of 1870

The case of Commercial Aviation & Travel Company & Ors. vs Vimal Pannalal was
heard by the Supreme Court of India on July 13, 1988. The appeal was filed by the
defendants against the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The main issue in the case was
whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and accounts was
undervalued for the purpose of court fees.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The plaintiff filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking the dissolution of the partnership
and accounts. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 25 lakhs for the purpose of jurisdiction and
at Rs. 500 for court fees. The defendants raised a preliminary objection, contending that the
relief sought in the suit had been undervalued and requested the court to reject the
plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected the preliminary objection and held that
the suit was not undervalued. The defendants appealed to a Division Bench, which affirmed
the decision of the Single Judge, relying on a previous Full Bench decision of the High Court.

ISSUES INVOLVED:
1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was undervalued for the purpose of court fees.
2. Whether the court had the power to interfere with the plaintiff’s valuation of the relief
sought.
 11

ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE:

The defendants argued that in a suit for accounts, the plaintiff could not arbitrarily value the
suit according to their whims. They contended that there was an objective standard or
positive material on the face of the plaint, and the valuation of the relief, ignoring such an
objective standard, was demonstratively arbitrary.
The plaintiff relied on the Full Bench decision of the High Court, which held that the plaintiff
had the right to place any value on the relief sought, subject to any rules made under the Suits
Valuation Act. They argued that the court had no power to interfere with the plaintiff’s
valuation.

JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower courts’ decisions. The apex
court held that in suits mentioned under section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, it is difficult to
lay down a standard of valuation. The legislature has not provided any standard of valuation
in the Act. Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to value the relief sought, subject to any rules
made under the Suits Valuation Act.
The Supreme Court also observed that in a suit for accounts, it is almost impossible for the
plaintiff to accurately value the relief. Until the accounts are taken, the plaintiff cannot
determine the exact amount that may be due to them. The court noted that Order VII, Rule
11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the court to come to a finding that the relief
claimed has been undervalued. In a suit for accounts, the court can’t determine the correct
value at a preliminary stage.

PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE:

These are the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Commercial Aviation & Travel
Company vs Vimal Pannalal:
1. In suits mentioned under section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff has the right
to value the relief sought, subject to any rules made under the Suits Valuation Act.
2. In a suit for accounts, it is difficult for the plaintiff to value the relief until the
accounts are taken accurately.
3. The court cannot interfere with the plaintiff’s valuation unless there are objective
standards or positive materials on the face of the plaint.
 12

CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court concluded that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not undervalued for the
purpose of court fees. The court held that in suits for accounts, it is not possible to determine
the correct value of the relief at a preliminary stage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the
plaintiff cannot whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for the suit. Still, in the absence of
objective standards or positive materials, the plaintiff’s valuation of the relief sought should
be accepted. The Court upheld the principle that the plaintiff has the right to value the relief
subject to any rules made under the Suits Valuation Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908.

2. HTTPS://IBLOGPLEADERS.IN
3. HTTPS://WWW.WRITINGLAW.COM
4. HTTPS://INDIANKANOON.ORG
13