The Supreme Court in Veena Singh (D) vs District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) the execution of a document/deed does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document/deed.
The facts in the instant case are that one Veena Singh allegedly had entered into two agreements with a developer – Gujral Associates. Later a sale deed was purported to have been executed by her in favour of the developer based upon the agreement to sell and upon the payment of the remaining sale consideration. The developer presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar-I, Bareilly.
Veena Singh, however, on receiving a notice from the sub-registrar appeared and submitted an objection in writing, with a request not to execute the incomplete and forged sale deed. She alleged that the developer had been harassing her into forcibly signing the sale deed in respect of her property and that they furnished her with misleading and false information in order to get her to sign the papers, all the while even forcing her to hide the transaction from the members of her own family. Accepting these objections, the Sub-Registrar refused to order the registration of the sale deed.
In an appeal filed by the developer, the District Registrar set aside the Sub-Registrar's decision and ordered the registration of the sale deed. This order of the District Registrar was challenged before the High Court by Veena Singh by filing a writ petition.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition while giving liberty to move the civil court for a declaration that the sale deed had been obtained by fraud and was a nullity.
Therefore, the matter went to the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Court and the main issue before it was whether the appellant's admission of her signatures and thumb impressions/fingerprints on the sale deed also amounts to an admission of its "execution".
Referring to various authorities on the meaning of "execution", the bench observed that the admission of one's signature on a document is not equivalent to an admission of its execution. It observed that-
“The "execution" of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document. Such an interpretation accounts for circumstances where an individual signs a blank paper and it is later converted into a different document, or when an individual is made to sign a document without fully understanding its contents. Adopting a contrary interpretation would unfairly put the burden upon the person denying execution to challenge the registration before a civil court or a writ court since registration will have to be allowed once the signature has been admitted…”
“..In a situation where an individual admits their signature on a document but denies its execution, the Sub-Registrar is bound to refuse registration in accordance with Sections 35(3)(a) of the Registration Act. Subsequently, if an application is filed under Section 73, the Registrar is entrusted with the power of conducting an enquiry of a quasi-judicial nature under Section 74. If the Registrar passes an order refusing the registration under Section 76, the party presenting the document for registration has the remedy of filing a civil suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, where a competent civil court will be able to adjudicate upon the question of fact conclusively.”
Therefore, the High Court allowed the appeal that registration does not depend upon the consent of the executant but on the Registrar's finding that the executant had actually signed the document.