The issue of registration of a document is with the State, which requires compulsory registration of documents so that it is not deprived of revenue by way of stamp duty payable on such transfers of immovable property. If the purchaser has no means to pay stamp duty or exorbitant demand of stamp duty is made by the registering authority which the purchaser is unable to pay at that time but he remains satisfied with the fact that the vendor has fairly and duly executed the sale deed presented it for registration and put him in possession of the purchased property which he is peacefully enjoying, he is always at liberty to pay the deficiency of stamp duty at any point of time. The document presented for registration will remain with the Registering Authority till such time, the deficiency is removed. However, this pendency of registration on account of deficiency cannot ensure any benefit to the vendor, who has already eliminated all his rights by executing the sale deed after receiving the sale consideration. He cannot become the owner of the transferred land merely because the document of sale is pending for registration. It is the purchaser who cannot produce such document which is pending registration with respect to the immovable property in evidence before the Court of law as the same would be inadmissible in view of statutory provision contained in the TP Act as also the Act, 1908.
If no sale consideration was paid, even though there was a registered sale deed, it would be at the instance of the vendor to challenge the said sale deed on the ground of no sale consideration being paid.
Documents were presented by whom is not relevant. It was for the registering authority to examine and once the document is registered, it is presumed that it was presented by the competent person and necessary signatures of the vendor and vendee must have been taken by the registering authority.
Non-registration of a document duly presented for registration could be for many reasons. But once it is registered, there is a presumption of correctness attached to it that is to say that the document has been duly executed and registered in accordance to law. It was for the defendants to come forward and to establish that the document was wrongly registered.
It was always open for the respondents to have called for the records of the Sub Registrar’s office and also the Sub-Registrar, in order to find out any mandatory lacuna or illegality or lack of procedure not being followed with respect to the registration.
Registration of a document carries with it presumption of correctness until and unless the same was challenged by way of independent proceeding or a counter claim. In the absence of any such claim, the sale deed in favor of the appellants has to be treated as a valid document.
Subsequent purchaser will not be protected, if the vendor had already transferred those rights through a prior sale deed. In a case where the vendor deceitfully executes a second sale deed, after the initial transfer, without disclosing the earlier transaction and without any ongoing litigation regarding the property, the subsequent purchaser cannot claim the benefits of a bona fide purchaser. Essentially, if the vendor’s rights were already severed by the first sale, any later sale deed made without transparency and in bad faith is invalid. The subsequent purchaser, even if unaware of the prior sale, cannot be considered bona fide because the vendor no longer had the legal right to sell the property. Thus, the protection afforded by the bona fide purchaser doctrine is nullified by the vendor’s deceitful conduct and the pre-existing transfer of rights.