Registration is complete only when the prescribed endorsements and certificate are copied under Section 61.

The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their pre-emption case under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, on limitation grounds.

The Trial Court and Appellate Court treated 28 May 1996 as the date registration was completed. The petitioners contended that registration was completed only on 3 October 1996, when the registering officer signed the relevant endorsement, and that the courts therefore miscalculated limitation.

The opposite parties did not appear to contest the revision.

1. Whether registration of the sale deed was completed on 28 May 1996 or only when the statutory endorsements and certificate were completed and copied into the register-book.

2. Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the Section 8 pre-emption case as time-barred, and whether any delay should be condoned.

Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act prescribes a four-month period for an application for pre-emption, running from the relevant transfer.

Sections 34, 35, 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, prescribe the appearance, admission, endorsements and certificate required in the registration process; under Section 61(2), registration is deemed complete when the endorsements and certificate referred to in Sections 59 and 60 are copied into the register-book.

The Court relied on Malay Kumar Bera v. Rabindra Nath Bera, 1977 (1) CLJ 92, for the proposition that registration is complete upon completion of the statutory certificate and endorsement process.

It also relied on Chandra Sekhar Sarkar v. Baidya Nath Ghosh, AIR 1982 Cal 6, for the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to a delayed Section 8 application where sufficient cause is shown. Ram Saran Lal v. Mst. Domini Kuer, AIR 1961 SC 1747, was cited by the petitioner.

The Court read Sections 60 and 61 together and held that the date appearing on the document did not, by itself, establish that registration was complete on 28 May 1996. Since the registering officer’s signature indicated that the document remained with the registering authority until 3 October 1996, the Court concluded that the cause of action arose only after that date and that the courts below had applied the wrong date when calculating limitation.

It further accepted that the petitioners’ account of obtaining a certified copy, making inquiries and seeking legal advice provided sufficient cause for any remaining delay; accordingly, the delay should be condoned.

It requested disposal within six months of communication of the order.

The judgment’s operative paragraph identifies the challenged appellate order as dated 15 September 2006 but refers inconsistently to Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 65/05 and 66/05, and to Miscellaneous Case Nos. 2/97 and 3/97.