JUDGMENT
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.
1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed assailing the
order of an Additional District Judge (Land Acquisition
Court) dated 18.9.1997 by which he had dismissed the
application of the petitioner and had allowed the
application of the respondents No. 2 to 6 for their
substitution in place of their deceased mother
Smt. Khazani Devi in a proceeding under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act pending before him.
2. The facts leading to this revision petition,
briefly stated, are that Mr. Jagdish, father of the
petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 6, was the owner of
certain agricultural land in village Rithala which was
acquired by respondent No. 1. Union of India. Mr. Jagdish
was aggrieved with the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Collector so he preferred the reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is
pending before the learned Additional District Judge.
On the death of Sh. Jagdish, the petitioner, respondents
No. 2 to 6 and his widow Smt. Khazani Devi were brought on
record as his legal representatives. Mr. Jagdish had
married twice. The petitioner is the son of his first
wife Smt. Bhagwani Devi. After the death of Smt. Bhagwani
Devi he married her real sister Smt. Khazani Devi.
Respondents No. 2 to 6 were born to Smt. Khazani Devi in
her marriage with late Mr. Jagdish. Respondents 2 to 6
are all married and are settled in their respective
matrimonial home. Smt. Khazani Devi dies on 6.5.1996.
The petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 6 filed two
separate applications for their substitution in place of
deceased Smt. Khazani Devi.
3. The petitioner in his application alleged that
Smt. Khazani Devi had been living with him and she had
all the love and affection for him as a son. She
executed a relinquishement deed dated 12.4.1996
relinquishing her right to receive 1/7th share in
compensation in respect of the lands of her husband. He
prayed that he has become entitled to receive her share
in the compensation, therefore, he should be substituted
as her legal representative also. The defendants No. 2
to 6, on the other hand, wanted their substitution in
place of Smt. Khazani Devi as her class-I heir of the
deceased. The Additional District Judge by the impugned
order rejected the application of the petitioner but had
allowed the application of the respondents 2 to 6 and
had substituted them as legal heirs of deceased
Smt. Khazani Devi. The petitioner is aggrieved and has
filed the present revision petition.
4. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioner
are that learned Additional District Judge has
erroneously held that the registered reliquishement
deed was unreliable since it was registered after the
death of Smt. Khazani Devi and further that there was
some interpolation in the recitation made in the deed.
He has referred to the provisions of Section 23 of the
Registration Act which provided that no document other
than a will shall be accepted for registration unless it
was presented within four months from the date of the
execution. He also drew attention to Section 36, 47 and
60 of the Registration Act. Section 36 laid down that
if a person who had presented the document for
registration, desires the appearance of any person whose
presence or testimony is necessary for the registration
of such document, the registering in his
discretion may get the summons issued to such a person
by an officer/court to appear before him. Section 47
laid down the time from which the registered document
would operate. According to this provision the
registered document would operate from the time from
which it would have commenced to operate if no
registration of the said document had been required or
made, and not from the time of its registration.
Section 60 on the other hand require the registering
officer to make an endorsement on the certificate
containing the word “registered” together with the
number and page of the book in which the document has
been copied. Such certificate shall be signed, sealed
and dated by the registering officer and it will become
admissible for the purpose of proving that the document
has been duly registered in the manner provided in the
Act and the facts mentioned in the endorsements referred
to in Section 59 had occurred as therein mentioned.
5. His argument is that in accordance with the
provision of Registration Act a document can be
presented for registration even after the death of the
executor i.e. Smt. Khazani Devi and that endorsement of a
certificate by the Registrar on the document was a proof
of due presentation and registration of a document in
accordance with the above provisions. Therefore, the
learned Additional District Judge was in error in
holding that the genuineness of the document had become
doubtful since it was registered after the death of the
executor of the document. He has further submitted that
the learned Additional District Judge has also wrongly
observed that there was tampering of the document since
the names of “Smt. Bhagwani Devi” has been typed over the
name of “Smt. Khazani Devi” in one of the paragraph of
the document since this recitation was of not any
material consequence. It was further submitted that the
photocopy of the relinquishment deed had already been
filed along with the application and the original
relinquishment deed was also produced after taking
opportunity on one date. He therefore, submitted that
the learned Additional District Judge had wrongly made
an observation that the original relinquishment deed
had not been produced by the petitioner despite availing
of the opportunities and on the date of hearing he had
produced a certified copy of the relinquishement deed.
Lastly it was argued that the learned Additional
District Judge has not given opportunity to the
petitioner for production evidence and substantiate his
allegations. He has relied upon the judgments in
Kanwarani Madna Vati and Anr. v. Raghunath Singh
and Ors. ; Ramdayal and Ors. v.
Bhanwarlal and Ors. and Shiv
Dass and Ors. v. Smt. Devki and Ors. AIR 1978
Punjab & Haryana 285 in support of his arguments.
6. On the other hand the counsel for respondents 2
to 6 has stated that these respondents were real
daughters and class-I heir of the deceased Smt. Khazani
Devi, and there was no reason for Smt. Khazani Devi to
relinguish her right in the compensation amount in
favor of the petitioner who was her step son and
deprive her own daughters of the inheritance in the
compensation money. It was further stated that there
was apparent interpolation in the recital of the
relinquishement deed and that the relinqishement deed
was presented for registration after the death of the
deceased and all these facts were taken into
consideration by the learned Additional District Judge
and that cogent reasons were given by him for
disbelieving the case of the petitioner.
7. I have given careful consideration to the
submissions made at the bar and I have perused the
record. The relinquishement deed relied upon by the
petitioner is a registered document. Endorsement
/certificate of the Sub-Registrar on the deed give rise
to prima facie due presentation and registration of this
document. Still the question whether the document was,
in fact, executed by the deceased Mrs. Khazani Devi and
the document is genuine can be decided only after an
opportunity was granted to the petitioner for proving
it. Same is about the allegation of overtyping/
interpolation in the document allegedly done after the
document was executed. It can be decided upon
consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties.
The learned Additional District Judge has decided the
application raised could not have been decided without
providing the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence.
The petitioner on the one hand and the respondents 2
to 6 on the other hand were claiming right to receive
compensation which was awardable to Smt. Khazani Devi in
the proceedings pending before the Land Acquisition
Court. It is not disputed that the copy of the
relinquishment deed had been filed by the petitioner
along with the application. It has been disputed that
the original document was produced by the petitioner
before the court but the learned Additional District
Judge has, at least, noted in his order that the
certified copy of this deed was produced before him by
the petitioner. Anyhow the court ought to have granted
an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the
relinquishement deed.
8. From the aforesaid discussion it is held that the
learned Additional District Judge committed error of
jurisdiction, illegality and material irregularity in
exercise of jurisdiction which warranted interference by
this court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 18.9.1997 passed by the Additional
District Judge is set aside an the case is remanded
back to the Additional District Judge for deciding the
application of the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6
afresh after giving them an opportunity to produce
evidence.
9. The parties shall appear before the learned
Additional District Judge on 18.3.2002. The trial court
record shall be sent back immediately.