The Certificate of Registration under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908: Evidentiary Value and Judicial Scrutiny in Indian Law

The Certificate of Registration under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908: Evidentiary Value and Judicial Scrutiny in Indian Law

Introduction

The Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter "the Act") is a cornerstone of Indian property law, designed to provide a systematic record of transactions relating to immovable property, thereby enhancing legal certainty and preventing fraud. Central to this legislative framework is Section 60, which pertains to the "Certificate of Registration." This certificate, endorsed by the Registering Officer, serves as prima facie evidence that a document has been duly registered in accordance with the Act's provisions. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 60, examining its statutory content, the evidentiary value attributed to the certificate by Indian courts, its interplay with other provisions of the Act and other relevant statutes, and the judicial scrutiny applied to its presumptions. The analysis draws upon a range of judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court and various High Courts to delineate the scope and limitations of this crucial provision.

The Statutory Mandate of Section 60

Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, lays down the procedure for issuing the certificate of registration and its legal effect. It reads as follows:

“60. Certificate of registration.—

(1) After such of the provisions of sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 as apply to any document presented for registration have been complied with, the Registering Officer shall endorse thereon a certificate containing the word “registered”, together with the number and page of the book in which the document has been copied.

(2) Such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the Registering Officer, and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by this Act, and that the facts mentioned in the endorsements referred to in section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned.”[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

Subsection (1) mandates the Registering Officer, upon satisfaction that the procedural requirements of Sections 34 (enquiry before registration by registering officer), 35 (procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively), 58 (particulars to be endorsed on documents admitted to registration), and 59 (endorsements and certificate to be copied and document returned) have been met, to endorse the document with a certificate. This certificate must explicitly state the word "registered" and include details of its entry in the registration records.[9]

Subsection (2) is pivotal as it accords evidentiary value to this certificate. Once signed, sealed, and dated by the Registering Officer, the certificate becomes admissible in evidence. Its admissibility serves two primary purposes: first, to prove that the document has been "duly registered in manner provided by this Act," and second, to prove that "the facts mentioned in the endorsements referred to in section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned."[10] Section 59 endorsements typically include the signature and admission of execution by every person executing the document, and by every person examined in reference to such document under any of the provisions of the Act.

Judicial Interpretation of Section 60

Presumption of Due Registration and Regularity

A significant legal consequence flowing from Section 60(2) is the presumption of due registration and the regularity of the official acts performed by the Registering Officer. The Privy Council, in Gangamoy Debi v. Troilukhya Nath, observed that "registration is a solemn act, to be performed in the presence of a competent official appointed to act as registrar, whose duty it is to attend the parties during the registration and see that the proper persons are present and are competent to act, and are identified to his satisfaction; and all things done before him in his official capacity and verified by his signature will be presumed to be duly and in order."[11], [20] This principle, often read with Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (which presumes that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed), lends considerable weight to the certificate of registration.

In Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, the Privy Council reiterated that "the evidence of due registration is itself some evidence of execution as against the plaintiffs."[17], [28] This was particularly relevant where direct evidence of execution might be scarce due to the passage of time. The Gujarat High Court in Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai And Others v. Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel Since Decd Thro His Heirs And... noted that the presumption under Section 60(2) can be particularly useful when evidence to prove execution in the manner provided in Section 67 of the Evidence Act is not available due to the executant or marginal witnesses being dead or for other reasons.[17], [28] Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in Hanumappa Bhimappa Koujageri v. Bhimappa Sangappa Asari observed that the Registrar's endorsements, as reflected in the Section 60 certificate, show admission of execution, and there is a presumption that registration proceedings were regular and honestly carried out.[25]

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of the Certificate

The plain language of Section 60(2) makes the certificate admissible to prove due registration and the occurrence of facts mentioned in Section 59 endorsements. This has been consistently upheld by various High Courts. For instance, the Calcutta High Court in Dharma Das Mondal & Ors. v. Kashi Nath De affirmed that the certificate is admissible for these purposes.[10] The Madras High Court in Tata Coffee Ltd. v. State Of T.N.[12] and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jasvir Singh v. Mohan Singh Others[13] have echoed this position.

However, the presumption arising from the certificate is rebuttable. As held in Sheo Sahoy Bhagut And Ors. v. Baij Nath Tewari, if the registration was effected in an office not constituted for the registration of documents relating to the property in question, no valid registration has occurred, notwithstanding the certificate.[16] Furthermore, the absence of the original sale deed containing the endorsement or its certified copy can prevent the raising of the presumption under Section 60(2), as highlighted in Khushi Ram And Others… v. Smt. Findhi And Others….[24]

Relationship with Other Sections of the Registration Act

Section 60 operates as a culmination of several preceding procedural steps outlined in the Act. Its application is expressly contingent upon compliance with Sections 34, 35, 58, and 59.[9], [10], [11], [12], [13] The Supreme Court in Sri Sri Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat And Others emphasized the importance of compliance with Sections 32 (persons to present documents for registration) and 33 (power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of section 32) for the validity of the registration process leading up to the certificate.[1]

The Supreme Court in MANIK MAJUMDER v. DIPAK KUMAR SAHA (D) THR. LRS. further clarified that the enquiry contemplated under Section 34, including satisfaction as to execution and identity, precedes the issuance of the certificate under Section 60. Thus, the statutory presumption under Section 60(2) arises from the due compliance with these prior steps.[22]

Section 61 of the Act, which deals with the copying of endorsements and the certificate into the register book and the return of the document, is a follow-up action to Section 60. As noted in Gafur Khan & Ors. v. State Of Raj. & Ors., the registration of a document is deemed complete upon the copying of such endorsements and certificate into the Register Book under Section 61.[9] The Calcutta High Court in Jayanta Kumar Jana v. Mina Rani Panja, citing the Supreme Court in Hiralal Agarwal v. Rampadarath Singh, affirmed that registration is complete only when the certificate under Section 60 is given and the endorsements and certificate are copied out under Section 61.[27] This completion is crucial, for instance, in determining the commencement of limitation periods for pre-emption rights or the point at which a transfer becomes effective, as discussed in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A Kamtam And Another where a registered sale deed extinguishes the right of redemption.[4]

Section 60 and Proof of Execution: A Nuanced Position

While the certificate under Section 60 is evidence of the facts mentioned in Section 59 endorsements (which include admission of execution before the Registrar), its role in proving "due execution" of the document, especially for documents requiring attestation by law, is more nuanced. The Kerala High Court in Kunhamina Umma And Others v. Special Tahsildar And Others acknowledged a conflict of authorities on whether registration is sufficient proof of execution.[20]

For documents like mortgages and wills, which require specific modes of attestation under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 59) and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 63) respectively, the certificate of registration under Section 60 does not automatically dispense with the need to prove due attestation as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Privy Council in Kunwar Surendra Bahadur Singh And Others v. Thakur Behari Singh And Others held that registration endorsements (under Sections 58 and 59, leading to the Section 60 certificate) do not substitute the statutory attestation requirements for mortgage deeds.[5] This was reiterated in Smt.Kanchari Umadevi v. Inumarthy Aruna Lakshmi, stating that mere proof of the Section 60 certificate does not prove due execution of a mortgage deed as per Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act; attestation must be independently proved.[26]

Similarly, in the context of wills, the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram And Another v. Suresh And Others clarified that while the certificate of registration under Section 60 raises a presumption of regularity under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act regarding the facts in Sections 58 and 59 endorsements, an endorsement by a Registering Officer is not by itself proof of the will having been duly executed and attested as per Section 63 of the Succession Act. The Registrar does not become an attesting witness solely by discharging statutory duties, unless the specific requirements for attestation (seeing the testator sign, receiving personal acknowledgement, and signing in the testator's presence) are met.[23] However, as seen in Ram Saran v. Deep Kumar And Others, the Sub-Registrar's testimony about the testator's actions and the presence of witnesses, coupled with the Section 60 certificate, can substantially aid in proving a will.[21]

The definition of "execution" itself, as discussed in Thiyagarajan v. The District Registrar, involves signing as a consenting party after understanding the contents, not mere signing.[18] While the Section 60 certificate supports the procedural aspect of registration and admission before the registrar, the substantive proof of valid execution, especially attestation, may require further evidence as per the specific nature of the document and applicable laws like the Indian Evidence Act (e.g., Pentakota Satyanarayana And Others v. Pentakota Seetharatnam And Others[7]; Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Sohan Lal (Dead) By Lrs.[3]).

Limitations and Scope of Registering Officer's Duty

It is crucial to understand that the Registering Officer's role is primarily procedural, focused on ensuring compliance with the Registration Act. As per executive instructions cited in Bachita Baruah v. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr, Registering Officers are "in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration" and should not refuse registration on grounds like the executant dealing with property not belonging to him, or the transaction being fraudulent or opposed to public policy. Such matters are for competent courts to decide.[15]

This principle was strongly reinforced by the Supreme Court in State Of Rajasthan And Others v. Basant Nahata, where Section 22-A of the Registration Act (as amended by Rajasthan), allowing the government to declare certain documents "opposed to public policy" and thus refuse registration, was struck down as unconstitutional for conferring arbitrary and unguided powers.[8] Similarly, in Kamal Rai Chathu Rai v. State Of Bihar And Ors., the Patna High Court held that a Collector cannot prevent registration on grounds of undervaluation or alleged non-compliance with other laws if the document is duly presented and executed according to the Registration Act.[19] The preliminary requirement of proper stamping under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, however, remains critical for admissibility, as established in Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra.[2]

Interplay with Other Laws

The operation of Section 60 of the Registration Act is intrinsically linked with other statutes:

  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 67 (proof of signature and handwriting), 68 (proof of execution of document required by law to be attested), and 114 (presumption as to regularity of official acts) are frequently invoked alongside Section 60.
  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 54 (sale how made – requires registration for tangible immovable property of value Rs. 100 and upwards), Section 59 (mortgage when to be by assurance – requires registration and attestation for principal money Rs. 100 or more), and Section 53A (part performance, where registration of the contract is now often required[14]) directly interface with the registration process culminating in the Section 60 certificate.
  • Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 63 (execution of unprivileged wills, requiring attestation) is paramount for wills, and the Section 60 certificate's role in proving such wills is, as discussed, supportive rather than conclusive of due attestation.
  • Limitation Act, 1963: The date of registration, evidenced by the Section 60 certificate, can be crucial for determining the starting point for limitation periods for challenging registered instruments (Prem Singh And Others v. Birbal And Others[6]).

Conclusion

Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the certificate of registration issued thereunder, play a vital role in the Indian legal system by providing a formal endorsement of the due registration of documents. The certificate carries a significant evidentiary presumption of regularity and due compliance with the procedural mandates of the Act, particularly regarding the facts stated in the Section 59 endorsements, such as the admission of execution before the Registering Officer. This presumption is a powerful tool in litigation, especially when direct evidence of execution is difficult to obtain.

However, judicial pronouncements have carefully delineated the boundaries of this presumption. While the Section 60 certificate is admissible proof of due registration and the facts endorsed, it does not, by itself, constitute conclusive proof of the due execution (especially attestation) of documents that are required by other laws (like the Transfer of Property Act or the Indian Succession Act) to be attested in a specific manner. In such cases, compliance with those specific attestation requirements must be independently established, often through the testimony of attesting witnesses as mandated by the Indian Evidence Act. The Registering Officer's function is primarily to ensure procedural compliance with the Registration Act, not to adjudicate on the substantive validity, title, or underlying nature of the transaction, which remain matters for judicial determination. Thus, Section 60 provides a critical piece of evidence, but its weight and effect must be assessed within the broader context of the specific document, the applicable substantive law, and the overall evidence adduced before the court.

References