Registration – Property – Refusal to Register document – None can transfer a better title than what he has – Indian Registration Act:

Writ petition was filed challenging the orders of the Registering Authority and the Appellate Authority refusing to register a conveyance executed by and between a private limited company which was the builder of the building and the co-operative housing society of flat purchasers which had been registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The order of refusal set out various provisions of various legislations which are claimed not to have been complied. The order further referred to section 72(3) of the Maharashtra Registration Manual, Part II which requires compliance with sections 19 to 26 and 33 to 35(b) of the Indian Registration Act. Under the impugned orders the Registering Authorities had consistently maintained that the vendor mentioned in the conveyance deed had no title.

The Registering Authority is required to register a document executed by the parties who present themselves before the Registering Authority and admit execution thereof.

Hence, it is seen that the document would have to be presented before the Registration office by the executors or their representatives. Once that is done, the Registering Authority would see that the executors are personally present before him or their representative is present before him. The Registering Authority will also ask whether they admit the execution. The Registering Authority will satisfy himself that the persons before him are the persons they claim to be. If that is done, the Registering Authority must register the document.

It may be mentioned that the registration of a document shows nothing other than the fact that the document which is executed is admitted to have been executed or is executed before the Registering Authority. It does not prove the contents of the document. It is settled law that even certified copies issued by the Registering Authority do not prove the truth of the contents of the documents. They only prove the fact that the document was indeed registered as per procedure. [See Omprakash Berlia vs. UTI, AIR 1983, Bom 1].

The Court observed that the Registering Authority persisted in refusing to register the document on the ground that the title of the vendor had not been shown. It is only the Civil Court which would consider the title. There is nothing in the Registration Act or the Registration Manual, to empower the Registrar to see or satisfy himself about the title of the vendor. Hence, registration entails nothing more than the factum that the executants or their agents attended before the Registrar and admitted the execution of the document.

It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there are many instances where the parties without any title seek to transfer such purported title which they do not have and legitimise the illegal act by the process of registration. That may be the ground reality. The Registering Authority, being conscious of such a fact, may consider himself obliged to prevent transfers by such illegal acts. However, the jurisprudential rule that none can transfer a better title than what he has, is indeed as elementary as it is basic. The Registering Authority, therefore, need not be take upon itself the duty of a Civil Court which alone would go into question of title upon it being challenged. The Registry Authority was directed to register the document within 4 months from the date of order.