JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. An evacuee property was sold by public auction on 14-3-1959 by the Managing Officer under Section 20(l)(a) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff was declared a purchaser w.e.f. 1-2-1960 and a sale certificate dated 20-9-1968 was issued in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that he is the owner and in possession of the property in question and that lie had purchased the property from the Managing Officer under the Act of 1954. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants are illegally trying to take possession of the open land, being used as a Sahan, in front of his house, which belongs to him under the sale certificate. The plaintiff prayed that a perpetual injunction be granted restraining the defendant from taking possession of the land and in the alternative grant possession to the plaintiff if found to be out of possession with regard to the land in question.
3. The defendant on the other hand contended that the plaintiff or the Custodian were never owners of the property in question nor were they ever in possession of it and that the defendant was the owner of the property in question by virtue of a sale deed dated 24-7-1968 executed by one Sri Aijaz Ahmad in favour of the defendant.
4. On the basis of the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court framed various issues, and after hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer by itself did not confer any title upon the plaintiff. The trial Court further found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs. The appellate Court held that in view of the sale certificate granted by the Managing Officer, the plaintiff, was the owner and was entitled for a decree of possession.
5. The defendant has now filed the Second Appeal before this Court challenging the validity of the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court.
6. I have heard Sri M. A. Qadeer, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashlsh Kumar Singh holding the brief of Sri R. B. D. Mishra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party.
7. Sri M.A. Qadeer has urged that the sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer by itself did not confer any title of ownership upon the plaintiff and in view of the Rule 90(15) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1955), the sale certificate is compulsorily required to be registered before the Registering Officer under the Registration Act, 1908. It was submitted, that since the sale certificate was not registered, the title of the property in question did not pass on to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the appellant became the owner and was in possession of the property in question by virtue of sale dated 24-7-1968 executed by one Sri Aijaz Ahmad. In' support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Division Bench of our Court in the ease of Mazharul Islam v. Khacher Bux reported in AIR 1969 All 554, in which it has been held that the title to a property sold by a public auction by the Custodian does not pass to the auction purchaser on the date of the auction sale nor on the date of deposit of the auction money by him. and, that the title passes only when the Custodian executes a registered sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party contended that the sale certificate is not required to be compulsorily registered in view of the fact that the Managing Officer is deemed to be a Revenue Officer within the meaning of Section 89(4) of the Registration Act and in view of the Section 17(2)(xii) a sale certificate issued by the Revenue Officer is not required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
9. In order to appreciate arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to consider Section 20(l)(a) and Section 20(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. which is quoted hereunder :
"20. Power to transfer property out of the compensation pool.- (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act. the managing officer or managing corporation may transfer any property out of the compensation pool :
(a) by sale of such property to a displaced person or any association of displaced persons whether incorporated or not, or to any other person, whether the property is sold by public auction or otherwise;
(2) Every managing officer or managing corporation selling any immovable property by public auction under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a Revenue Officer within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Indian Registration Act. 1908."
10. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Managing Officer has been given the power to sell a property out of the compensation pool to any displaced person or to any other person. The Managing Officer while selling the property by way of public auction shall" be deemed to be a Revenue Officer under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.
11. Before proceeding further, the provision of the Registration Act, 1908 is to be understood. Section 17 of the Registration Act requires certain documents to be compulsorily registered. However, certain documents need not be registered under Section 17(2) of the Act. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act reads as under :
"Section 17(2) - Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) applies to -
(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer."
12. Thus, it is clear that a sale certificate issued by a Revenue Officer is not required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. This view has been further fortified by the provision of Rule 90(15) of the Rules of 1955, which is quoted herein.
"(15) When the purchase price has been realised in full from the auction purchaser, the Managing Officer shall issue to him a sale certificate in the form specified in Appendix XXII or XXIII, as the case may be. A Certified Copy of the sale Certificate shall be sent by him to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property to which the certificate relates is situated. If the auction purchaser is a displaced person and has associated with himself any other displaced person having a verified (sic) whose not compensation is to be adjusted in whole or in part against the purchase price, the sale certificate shall be made out Jointly in the name of all such persons :
Provided that if it is agreed in writing by all concerned that the sale certificate may be made out in the name of auction purchaser, the sale certificate may be made out in the name of auction purchaser."
Further, Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as under :
"(4) Every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property comprised in the certificate is situated. and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. I."
13. From a perusal of Rule 90(15) of the aforesaid Rules of 1955 read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, it is clear that the Managing Officer is only required to send a certified copy of the sale certificate to the Registering Officer, which is only required to be filed in Book No. 1 by the Registering Officer. The aforesaid provisions makes it absolutely clear that a sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer, who is also deemed to be a Revenue Officer, is not required to be compulsorily registered under the Registration Act and the sale certificate sent by the Managing Officer is only required to be I kept in Book No. 1. The learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer. AIR 1991 SC 1880. wherein it has been held that an Income Tax Officer while issuing a sale certificate acts like a Revenue Officer and the sale certificate issued by him is not required to be compulsorily registered. The Supreme Court further held :-
"It is sufficient to say, for the purposes of this case, that all that the Sub-Registrar required to do is to file the copy of the certificate in Book No. 1 and no more. He does not have to copy out the certificate or make any other entries in-Book No. I."
14. A document, which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act is copies word by word in the registers kept in the Registrar's office. On the other hand a sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer is only required to be kept in Book No. 1 and is not required to be copied word by word.
15. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in AIR 1969 All 554 has no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the said case, the Court was considering the powers of the Custodian under Section 10(2)(o) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and after considering the various provisions of the Act held that the Custodian is only acting on behalf of the evacuee and therefore, when the Custodian sells the evacuee property under Section 10(2)(o) of the said Act, the sale deed is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The Court, therefore, held that the title to the property sold by public auction by the Custodian passes on to the auction purchaser when the Custodian executes a registered sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court also considered the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act), 1954 and found that in the Act of 1954, the Managing Officer while selling the property by a public auction is deemed to be a Revenue Officer within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Registration Act, which power had not been given to the Custodian under the Act of 1950. Thus the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable.
16. In Manohar Lal v. Rent Control Eviction Officer, AIR 1959 All 388 it has been held - "that the title of the property passes on to the auction purchaser when a sale certificate is issued under Rule 90(15) of the Rules of 1955.
17. In view of the aforesaid, I hold that a sale certificate issued by the Managing Officer pursuant to an auction sale under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act. 1954 read with Section 90(45) of the Rules of 1958 is not required to be compulsorily registered under the Registration Act and that the title passes on to the auction purchaser upon the issuance of the sale certificate.
18. Thus, I find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.