Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
13. It was urged that an error on the part of the office of respondent No.2 in dealing with the two Sale Deeds could not be discounted and it was, therefore, absolutely necessary for the respondent No.2 to have gone into the genuineness of the appellant's sale Deed as well before arriving at a finding as to D whether any fraud or forgery had at all been committed.
14. Mr. Ghosh urged that on 2nd June, 2005, some mis- creants had tresspassed into the appellant's property and had demolished the rooms erected thereupon by the appellant. A E written complaint was lodged by the appellant on 3rd June, 2005, before the Inspector-in-Charge, Sonarpur Police Station on the basis whereof Sonarpur P.S. Case No. 218 dated 3rd June, 2005, was registered under Sections 147/148/149/427/ 506 IPC and that during the investigation, the Investigating Of- ficer seized certain articles from the place of occurrence to which F one Dipankar Dey was a seizure witness. On 16th September, 2005, the said Mr. Dipankar Dey, in his alleged capacity as the Constituted Attorney of one Shrimati Anjali Ghosh, daughter of the appellant's ver:idor, filed a suit for declaration and perma- nent injunction, being Title Suit No. 141 of 2005, against the G appellant before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court at Baruipur, in respect of the plot of land acquired by the appellant by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by Sayaram Basu, together with an application for temporary in- junction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the H Code of Civil Procedure. The said application for temporary NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN BHATTACHARYA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] injunction was rejected by the learned Civil Judge butthe suit is A pending disposal before the said Court.
15. On 3rd March, 2006, the said Dipankar Dey having failed to obtain an interim order in his suit, made an application on 3rd March, 2006, to the Inspector General of Registration, Revenue Department, alleging that the registration of the appellant's sale deed had been effected in a forged and fraudu- lent manner. Mr. Ghosh submitted that though the title suit filed by Shri Dipankar Dey stood dismissed, the writ petition was thereafter filed despite the order of the civil court. Mr. Ghosh submitted that such an enquiry as directed by the Writ Court, c which had the effect of by passing the decree of the civil court was, entirely without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside.
16. Mr. Ghosh concluded on the note that on the strength of the two Conveyances both the appellant, as well as the re- spondent, have been in undisturbed possession of the proper- ties conveyed to them by their respective deeds. Therefore, the dispute which has been raised only requires correction by the allotment of a different number to one of the two documents, particularly when the suit for declaration which had been filed E by the said Dipankar Dey, on behalf of the daughter of the appellant's vendor, was dismissed and no further steps were taken in respect thereof.
17. The specific case made out on behalf of the resp on- …( dent No.1 was that the Sale Deed of the respondent No.~ was F the document which had been registered before the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, on 14th March, 1989, and had been numbered as Deed No. 3203 of 1989 and recorded in Book No.1, Volume No. 75 at pages 167-17 4 and that any other document which purported to have the same registration par- ticulars had to be a forged and/or fabricated document which had been fraudulently inserted in the records of the District Reg- istrar in place of the Deed of the respondent No.1. A complaint had, therefore, been made to the District Registrar to hold an enquiry into the matter and thereafter to place the document of (2008] 13 S.C.R. the respondent No.1 in the concerned Book and Volume main- tained under Section 51 of the Registration Act, 1908.
18. Reference was also made to the affidavit affirmed by the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, the respondent No.3 herein, wherein it has been mentioned that an enquiry was com- B menced by him pursuant to the direction given by the High Court in its order dated 9th November; 2006. During the course of the enquiry, the appellant had been asked to produce his original document, but neither did he appear on the date fixed (12.1.2007) nor did he produce the original Sale Deed. Only a C prayer was made by his learned advocate to adjourn the hear- ing. It was, in fact, adjourned to 31st January, 2007. On the said date, although, the respondent No.1 was present, the appellant again remained absent and his advocate merely informed the District Registrar that a Special Leave Petition had been filed D before this Court against the order of the High Court directing him to conduct the enquiry. However, on a careful examination of the Deed produced by the Respondent No.1 and upon verifi- cation of the relevant office records, the District Registrar came to the conclusion that the Deed produced by the respondent E No.1,bearing No. 3203 of 1989, executed and registered in his favour by Shri Manindranath Ghosal, was genuine.
19. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned advocate, who appeared for the respondent No.1 pointed out from the report of the Dis- trict Registrar that he had taken due note of the stay order F passed by this Court in this Civil Appeal in which the District Registrar was also directed to proceed with the enquiry.
20. Reference was also made to the affidavit filed on be- half of the Officer-in-Charge, Alipore Police Station, wherein it G had been mentioned that during the course of investigation it was noticed that the Register Volume-I is accessible to the members of public for the purpose of searching for information in respect of properties. In the affidavit, it was also mentioned that any person with malafide intention could replace a docu- H ment in the said Register, if he wanted to. NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN BHATTACHARYA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
21. Mr. Mehta also urged that although the Registration Act A is silent as to whether the District Registrar can conduct an en- .. quiry of the nature undertaken in the instant case, there can be no bar to such an enquiry being conducted on the orders of the High Court, if the same was a fact-finding enquiry. It was urged that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, was fully competent to order such an enquiry to be conducted to enable the Court to arrive at a proper finding with regard to the dispute. Mr. Mehta submitted that the enquiry con- ducted by the District Registrar on the direction given by the High Court could not be challenged on the ground that the Registra- c tion Act did not provide for such an enquiry to be undertaken.
22. Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, learned advocate, appear- ing for the State of West Bengal and its officials, supported the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent No.1 and urged that despite having been given an opportunity to prove D that his document was genuine and that some mistake may have taken place in numbering of the two Deeds and recording their registration in Book No.1, Volume No.75, the appellant avoided the enquiry for reasons best known to him and even after appearing before the District Registrar through his learned advocate, he ultimately chose not to avail of such opportunity and filed the present Civil Appeal instead. It was urged that it was no longer open to the appellant to claim that his Deed had been rightly numbered as Deed No. 3203 of 1989.
23. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the materials on record, we are inclined to agree with Mr. Mehta that the enquiry con- ducted by the District Registrar under the directions of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Con- stitution cannot be called into question on the ground that the G Registration Act did not provide for such enquitY to be con- du.cted by the said officer. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the finding of the District Registrar that the Sale Deed. executed in favour of the respondent No.1 by Shri Manindranath Ghosal had been correctly numbered as Deed No. 3203 of 1989 and correctly ent!=red in Book No.1, Volume No. 75 and that in terms of the order passed by the High Court a copy of the same is required to be kept in the said Book-Vol- ume. To that extent, there is no reason to interfere with the di- rections and order passed by the High Court.
24. We are also not inclined to accept Mr. Ghosh's submis- sion that since the suit filed by Shri Dipankar Dey on behalf of the daughter of the appellant's vendor had been dismissed for de- fault, no further direction could have been given by the Writ Court to conduct an enquiry into the genuineness of the appellant's C Deed in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though, it may be said that the rights of the par- ties in the suit in regard to the land forming the subject matter of the appellant's Sale Deed cannot be gone into any further, the question relating to the genuineness of the Sale Deed executed D and registered in the appellant's favour remains to be decided as the same had not been decided either in the suit or before any other forum. It is probably with that object in mind that both the High Court and this Court had directed the enquiry to con- tinue while restraining the respondent No.1 from acting on the· E findings in the enquiry to place a copy of the Sale Deed of the respondent No.1 in the relevant place of Book No.1, Volume No. 75, in the office of the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas ..
25. However, there is another angle to the matter, which appears to have been overlooked both by the District Registrar as well as by the High Court. During the enquiry, on account of the failure of the appellant to produce his original document before the District Registrar, the status of his document was not decided, although, there was a d!rection by the High Court to consider both the documents. A finding should, therefore, have G been arrived at either by the District Registrar or the High Court regarding the genuineness of the appellant's document. On such count we are inclined to agree with Mr. Ghosh that the genuine- ness of the appellant's Deed should also have been examined. We also agree with Mr. Ghosh that since the complaint had been H lodged by the District Registrar concerned against the appel- NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN BHATTACHARYA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] lant, the said officer should not have been entrusted by the High Court with the enquiry,·s·ince he had already dealt with the mat- ter and had arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case had been made out against the appellant.
26. We, therefore, allow the appeal in part to the extent indicated hereinbelow: (a) Without disturbing the findings of the District Registrar with regard to the genuineness of the Sale Deed of the respondent No.1, we direct the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal, to conduct a separate enquiry into the matter, with reference to the genuineness of the· appellant's document, and to pass appropriate orders thereupon. (b) The appellant is directed to appear before the Inspector General of Registration on 20th October, 2008, at 11 a.m. for the purpose of the enquiry. In the event the appellant does not appear before the said Authority on the aforesaid date, the enquiry should be deemed to be closed, but this will not prevent the appellant from seeking his remedy, if any, before any other forum. If th~ Inspector General of Registration is satisfied (c) that even the appellant's Sale Deed is genuine and some mistake in numbering may have occurred in ·the office of the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, he shall take necessary steps to have the error corrected so that both the Sale Deeds are placed in the BookNolume maintained in the office of the District Registrar. If, however, he arrives at a finding that the appellant's Sale Deed does not appear to be genuine, he shall close the enquiry and direct the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, to take such action as indicated in the order of the High Court.
27. There will be no order as to costs. K.K.T. Appeal Partly allowed. c .F