Writ Court May Quash Registration of Deed Where Sub-Registrar Fails to Mandatorily Verify Executant Identity

The Petitioner, claiming ownership of a property in Rohini through a 2011 Conveyance Deed, sought to set aside the registration of a Sale Deed dated 20.09.2022 purportedly executed between her and Respondent No. 6.

The Sale Deed was initially refused registration in 2018 due to the vendor's missing identification.

On appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, the Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to register the deed upon satisfaction of statutory compliance.

Despite the vendor failing to appear or receive summons, the Sub-Registrar issued an order on 20.09.2022 refusing registration "qua the vendor" but allowing it "qua the vendee" (Respondent No. 6).

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against the registration of a document when an alternative remedy of a civil suit exists?

2. Whether the Sub-Registrar can validly register a Sale Deed "qua the vendee" while the identity of the vendor remains unverified?

3. Whether the Sale Deed was registered beyond the maximum permissible time limit under the Registration Act?

Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that the registering officer must satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him.

Section 35(1) requires that all persons executing the document must appear and admit execution for registration to proceed.

Writ jurisdiction is available if registration is ordered in breach of statutory provisions, regardless of alternative civil remedies as established in Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Veena Singh v. District Registrar.

Section 72(2) concerning the 30-day timeline for presentation following an appellate order.

The court determined that while a civil court alone can declare a document null and void, the High Court under Article 226 can cancel the act of registration if the authority failed to perform its statutory duties.

The Sub-Registrar admitted in the impugned order that the vendor’s identity could not be verified and her presence was not secured.

The Registration Act contains no provision allowing for "partial registration" or registration of a deed solely qua one party when the other party’s identity is unascertained.

the court rejected the Petitioner's argument regarding time-barring, noting that Respondent No. 6 had presented the document within 30 days of the Registrar’s appellate order as per Section 72(2).

The court granted liberty to the parties to re-present the document for registration strictly in accordance with the Act and clarified that no finding was rendered on the actual title or the validity of the execution of the Sale Deed.