ORDER
Challenging communications dated 23.12.2016 and 12.05.2017 bearing no.GENOBA/RGN/40/16-17 at Annexures- M and P respectively issued by respondent no.2 and seeking direction to respondent no.3 to rectify errors/mistakes crept in official records with regard to registration of deposit of title deeds, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri. K.V. Lokesh, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner-bank had extended financial assistance to respondent no.4 against security of mortgage of title deeds. Accordingly, respondent no.4 had executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Annexure-A) in favour of petitioner-bank on 29.03.2012 and got it registered before respondent no.3 - Sub-Registrar, on same day.
- 3 -
3. Immediately after registration i.e. on same day, petitioner obtained original deed and encumbrance certificate (Annexures-B and C).
4. Subsequently, when there was default in repayment of loan, petitioner applied for fresh encumbrance certificate. Same was issued on 20.12.2017 as per Annexure-F. Since difference were noted even copy of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed was also obtained. Copy of same issued was as per Annexure-G. On comparison with original deed, it was found that there were differences in property number and property numbers in boundary description. It was seen that there was clear overwriting in Annexure-G - Deed, wherein numerical '1' was suffixed to property number, as well as to property numbers in boundary description in schedule of said deed, thereby making it appear to be a totally different property than one offered as security in favour of petitioner-bank. Immediately, thereafter petitioner gave representation on 08.02.2016 (Annexure-H) to respondent no.3 for rectification.
5. In pursuance of same, respondent no.2 issued communication as per Annexure-M stating that after completion of registration, and its scanning, it would be locked and he did
- 4 -
not have power of rectifying registered deeds. However, respondents, instead of considering petitioner's representation, advised petitioner to get same corrected under a rectification deed. Even petitioner's further representation, met with same result in Annexure-P. Assailing same this writ petition is filed.
6. It was submitted that documents issued to petitioner immediately after completion of registration i.e. as per Annexures-B and E, indicated correct property number and description, but copies of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds and EC subsequently issued i.e. Annexures-G & H respectively were fraudulently over written insofar as description of property number.
7. Despite said fact, respondents no.2 and 3 who had issued impugned communication, had not properly taken note of true intent and purpose of Section 68(2) of Indian Registration Act and therefore sought for quashing of impugned communications and direction to respondent no.3 for rectification.
8. On other hand, Sri. V Shiva Reddy, learned HCGP for respondents no.1 to 3 filed statement of objections opposing writ petition and contended that after document
- 5 -
registered is scanned and entered into storage records, there cannot be any correction unless a deed of rectification was resorted to by parties. Even collusion of respondent no.3 with respondent no.4 as denied.
9. Sri. K.M. Somashekara, learned counsel for respondent no.4, submitted that after registration of document, authorities had stored soft copy of Deed as registered date of registration and denied any correction.
10. It was further submitted that petitioner cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as writ petition involves dispute regarding tampering with records, and he was required to approach Civil Court under Section 26 of Specific Relief Act. On above grounds sought for dismissal of writ petition.
11. Heard learned counsel.
12. From above submissions, sum and substance of petitioner's grievance is that schedule of property mentioned in Annexures-B and E, which were stated to have been issued immediately after registration, differs from schedule of property from the document stated to be stored in records of official
- 6 -
respondents. It is also claimed that correct schedule is as mentioned in Deed at Annexure-B and that there is fraudulent alteration of schedule in records of official respondents as it differs in schedule mentioned in Annexure-G and therefore, respondents ought to have exercised power available under Section 68 (2) of Registration Act for correcting same, but same has been illegally refused, leading to filing of this writ petition questioning illegal refusal.
13. In order to appreciate contentions, it would be worthwhile to refer to two schedules:
Schedule in Annexure-B
"All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.83, PID No.53-81-83, situated at 9th Cross, Raghavendra Block, Srinagar, Ward No.53, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 45 feet, measuring in all 1350 square feet with constructed building thereon and bounded as follows:
On the East by : Property bearing No.82, West by : Property bearing No.84,
North by : Property bearing No.88, South by : Road. "
14. Date of registration mentioned as 29.03.2012 , time of registration is mentioned as 3.22-24 p.m. and date of issuance as 29.03.2012 at 3.41 p.m. Said document bears signature of parties and seal of respondent no.3. However, schedule in Annexure-G is as follows:
- 7 -
"All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.831 PID No.53-81-831 situated at 9th Cross, Raghavendra Block Srinagar, Ward No.53, Bangalore, Measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 45 feet, measuring in all 1350 square feet with constructed building thereon and bounded as follows:
On the East by : Property bearing No.821 West by : Property bearing No.841 North by : Property bearing No.881 South by : Road."
15. Since it is contended by respondents that Annexure-G is as registered, scanned and stored in official records, whereas petitioner claims that it differs as observed hereinabove from the original registered deed handed over to Petitioner immediately after completion of registration, one of them has to be either a corrected copy or fraudulently tinkered copy.
16. Before proceeding further, reference to relevant provisions under Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 would also be necessary:
"Rule 22-A. Preparation of copy: (i) The copy shall be typed, printed or lithographed or computed printed on document copying sheet in clear and legible lines. The typing, printing, lithographing or computer printing shall be in long lasting black ink.
(ii) Each page of the copy of the document shall be an exact reproduction of the page of the original document; however it need not be a facsimile copy. Everything appearing in each page of the original document including
- 8 -
the signatures of the parties, attesting witnesses, etc., shall be faithfully copied in the copy.
(iii) Both sides of each sheet may be used for preparing the copy. Mo part of the copy shall be typed, printed or lithographed or computer printed outside the border area specified.
(iv) If it is necessary to correct a word or figure, the incorrect word or figure shall be scored out instead of overwriting and the correct one written afresh. No altered word or figure shall be allowed to remain in the copy without being scored out. No word or letter shall be overwritten or typed by using white fluid.
(v) The Stamp Vendor's endorsement on each of the stamp papers shall not be copied by the person preparing the copy. The same shall be copied by the staff of the Registration department.
(vi) The copy shall be signed by the executant and presentant of the document for registration, at the end of each page.
……….
Rule 22-C. Procedure on admission of document to registration and mode of authenticating copy and filing it: (i) The copy presented with the document shall be compared by the staff of the registration office with the original document carefully. Such entries and corrections shall be made in the copy as may be necessary to make it an exact copy of the original.
(ii) Immediately after copying the document (including the copy of the signatures of the parties and attesting witnesses and of the document writer) the Stamp Vendor's endorsements shall be copied by a member of the staff of the registration office. The value of the stamps (stamp papers) borne by the document shall then be entered in the copy in the language of the document. When no stamp is used for the document, the entry to be made shall be
- 9 -
'Stamp NIL'. Any certificate on the document relating to stamp duty shall then be copied.
(iii) The heading "copy of endorsements and certificate"
shall be copied on the line next below the line containing the stamp entry and below such heading shall be copied the endorsements made on the document.
(iv) After the copy has been compared and made an exact copy of the original including the endorsements and compared, the volume of the register book in which it is to be filed shall be determined and the page numbers to be assigned in the volume shall be affixed on the pages of the copy by a numbering machine.
(v) The registration certificate required by Section 60 shall then be entered on the document showing therein the number on volume of the register book and the pages in which the copy of the document is filed.
The registration certificate required to be copied under sub-section (1) of Section 61 shall then be copied in the copy immediately after the copy of the endorsements.
(vi) After the registration certificate is copied the procedure prescribed in Rule 122 of these Rules shall be followed.
..........
Rule 120. Procedure of making entry of a registered document. (i) Every entry of a registered document shall be an exact copy of the original. Any interlineations, blank, erasure or alteration in a document presented for registration and in the endorsements made on it shall be copied into the Register book exactly as they appear in the document and in the endorsements. Notes explaining such interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations shall be written at the end of the copy, before giving a true copy certificate, in the following manner, namely.
(a) in the case of an interlineations or alteration a single mark 'X' in red ink shall be made over it.
- 10 -
(b) in the case of an erasure or blank two marks
"XX" in red ink, once at each end of such erasure or blank shall be made.
All such notes shall be classified in the manner as in Rule 122, the letters (a), (b), (c), (d), etc., being assigned in red ink, instead of numbering as (1), (2), (3), (4), etc.,
(ii) The same procedure shall be adopted in the case of copies granted under Section 57 or those forwarded under Sections 65, 66 and 67. The interlineations, blanks and erasures made at the time of preparing such copy shall be bracketed in red ink and attested by the Registering Officer on each side consecutively numbered in Roman figures, i.e., I, II, III, IV, etc., and classified in the same manner as in Rule. 122.
(iii) If the copy of a document occupies more than once page of a Register Book, the endorsements on the document shall be copied once only, with the exception of the serial number, which shall be repeated on every page. The endorsements shall in no case be copied alongside of the copy of any document other than that to which they relate. If in the case of any document copies of the endorsements in Column 2 of a Register book extend lower down than the space occupied by the copy of the document in the column in which the document is copied, the blank space left in the last named column shall be cancelled by cross lines in ink being drawn over it. ……….
Rule 122. Comparing and attestation of entries in Register Books endorsements of copying, reading and comparing, how to be made, manner of nothing and attesting interlineations, etc., (i) When the copy in a Register book has been completed, it shall be carefully compared with the original and the copyist, the reader and the comparer shall respectively endorse below the copy the words "copied by me", "read by me" and "compared by me" and shall attach respective signature thereto.
- 11 -
(ii) The Registering Officer shall then certify under his signature that it is a true copy.
(iii) All interlineations blanks and erasures made at the time of copying shall be bracketed in red ink, attested by the Registering Officer on each side, consecutively numbered in red ink, and classified under the categories:
(a) Interlineations,
(b) Blanks and
(c) Erasures.
(iv) The form of certificate shall be as follows.
"True Copy" No. of corrections: 8 (eight);
(1) and (7) Interlineations; (2), (3) and (6) Blanks;
(4) and (8) Erasures;
(5) Alteration. (Initials of the Registering Officer). (Signed)
A. B.
Registered Officer."
17. As can be seen, sub-rule (iv) of Rule 22-A mandates that overwriting is prohibited and any incorrect writing shall be clearly scored out and correct one written afresh. Rule 22-C (i) provides for authentication of copy, while Rules 120 provides procedure for making entry in registers and Rule 122 provides specific procedure for marking of corrections while entering registered document in Register.
- 12 -
18. As can be noted, there is difference in property description in between Annexure-B and Annexure-G without any of them bearing certification regarding corrections. Therefore, one of them is likely to be fake or fraudulently altered.
19. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon respondent-authorities to have held enquiry regarding same to find out whether copy issued to petitioner is erroneous or document as stored in register by official respondents was tampered with, before issuing impugned communications to petitioner.
20. After enquiry, if alteration was found to be on account of any mistake, power under Section 68 (2) of Registration Act would be available to respondent no.2 to rectify such error. And if it is found to be on account of any fraudulent act on part of either of parties or staff of official respondents, appropriate action requires to be taken against them.
21. Therefore, issuance of communication by respondent no.2 to petitioner, advising him to get rectification
- 13 -
deed would be unsustainable. Especially, when petitioner and respondent no.4 are at logger heads in view of default in repayment of loan amount and criminal case having been filed against respondent no.4 by petitioner.
22. For said reason, directing petitioner - bank to approach Civil Court for seeking declaration would not be necessary, enquiry as directed above would reveal reason and manner of effecting alteration/correction.
23. In view of above discussion, following :
O R D E R
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned communications dated 23.12.2016 and 12.05.2017 bearing no.GENOBA/RGN/40/16- 17 at Annexures-M and P respectively issued by respondent no.2 and seeking direction to respondent no.3 to rectify errors/mistakes crept in official records with regard to registration of deposit of title deeds are quashed.
Respondents no.2 is directed to hold enquiry about reason for discrepancy between entries in Annexures-B and G, by following procedure under Chapter XXI of Registration Rules, if necessary by summoning original of Annexure-B, from petitioner
- 14 -
and calling for response from respondent no.4 under Rule 160 (i) (h) of rules. Said exercise shall be done within period of three months.
After enquiry, if it is found that overwriting was due to error or due to misfeasance by either of parties in collusion with or independently by any concerned official/s, appropriate action shall be taken against them.
Insofar as petitioner is concerned, recourse to power under Section 68 (2) to correct mistake would be necessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*