Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mrs. Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar, a Sub-Registrar in charge of registration at Taluka Maval, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in connection with C.R. No. 152 of 2009 registered at Lonavla Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Mr. Satish Shetty, a social worker and office bearer of 'Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Samiti', alleging that the applicant registered sale deeds without proper verification and in collusion with vendors, thereby facilitating the sale of government uncultivable lands by persons posing as owners. The prosecution argued that the 7/12 extracts (revenue records) showed the words 'Akari Pad' in the occupant's column, indicating government ownership, and that the Sub-Registrar ought to have verified these records and refused registration. The court examined Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, which requires the registering officer to enquire whether the document was executed by the persons purporting to execute it, satisfy himself as to their identity, and in case of representatives, verify their authority. The court held that a bare perusal of Section 34 indicates that the registering officer is not required to verify the title of the transferor or ascertain whether the transferor is the owner of the property. The court noted that the normal rule of 'Caveat emptor' applies, requiring the buyer to beware and enquire about the vendor's title. The court found that the applicant had no duty to verify revenue records for title, and therefore, the allegations did not make out a case for custodial interrogation. The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Pre-Arrest Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 r/w 34 IPC - Applicant, a Sub-Registrar, sought anticipatory bail for alleged registration of fraudulent sale deeds of government lands without proper verification - Court granted bail holding that the registering officer's duty under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not extend to verifying title of the transferor - The principle of Caveat emptor places the burden on the buyer to check title - Mere failure to check revenue records does not constitute an offence under the alleged sections (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Sub-Registrar can be held criminally liable for registering sale deeds without verifying the title of the transferor, particularly when revenue records indicate government ownership.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, holding that the registering officer has no duty to verify title under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the principle of Caveat emptor applies.
Law Points
- Duty of registering officer under Section 34 of Registration Act
- 1908 is limited to identity and execution
- not title verification
- Caveat emptor applies to buyer's duty to check title
