The Bombay High Court observed that if a person does not have an existing right in the property or a share, then there would not be a compromise decree of partition. The decree of partition necessarily would be amongst the persons having pre-existing right in the property.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice S.V.Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed assailing the Circular dated 16.11.2016. Under the said Circular, issued by the Collector cum District Registrar, Solapur, it has been directed that the Sub Divisional Officer and Tahsildar of the Region shall not mutate the Revenue Record on the basis of the unregistered documents and further directing to abide by the Government Resolution dated 21.04.2018.

Atul Damle ,the Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the compromise decree passed by the courts or in the Lok Adalat concerning the agricultural lands are not required to be compulsorily registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 . Reference is made to section 17(2)(vi) of the Act of 1908. The Senior counsel further refers to the proviso to section 46 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (for short “the Act of 1958”) and submits that if the instrument relates to partition of agricultural land, the rate of duty applicable is only Rs.100/-.

Damle referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. vs. Rajkumar & Ors. dated 05.02.2020 and another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel . He also relied upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court in the case of Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

B.V.Samant, AGP for the State submits that the nomenclature of the document is not a decisive factor in determining the stamp duty. The Government Authorities acting under the Act of 1958 are empowered to look into the contents of the concerned instrument to find out the real nature of the transaction and the intention of the parties to find out the correct stamp duty applicable to the same. The Government Circular dated 21.04.2018 clarifies that it is not compulsory to register the memorandum of Family Partition Deed. However, stamp duty under Article 46 of Schedule I of the Act of 1958 is payable under such Family Partition Deed. The said Circular was issued after analysing the judgment of this court in the case of Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande (Supra).

The impugned Circular / letter is issued by the office of the Collector, Solapur in view of certain malpractices observed by the office. By subsequent Circular dated 14.08.2018, the office of the Collector, Solapur has clarified the situation. Under the said Circular, it is clarified that the stamp duty is payable under Article 46 of the Act of 1958 in case of partition deeds. In case of partition deed of agricultural lands, stamp duty is Rs.100/- and in case of nonagricultural land, stamp duty as provided under Article 46 of the Act of 1958 is payable.

It is further submitted that all decrees involved in conveyance of property shall necessarily attract stamp duty as provided under the Act of 1958. Every case will have to be evaluated on its own merits. The A.G.P. submits that the correct position is explained by the Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Maharashtra State, Pune by its letter dated 24.03.2022.

Damle contended that the Petitioner is concerned with the compromise decree of the agricultural properties passed by the courts or in Lok Adalat .

The Court held that Partition is a division of shares in the inherited property. After the division of the property, each member becomes an independent owner of his share in the property. Registration of the document and payment of stamp duty are two distinct and separate concepts. The Registration Act elaborates the instruments that are required to be compulsorily registrable whereas the Act of 1958 prescribes the stamp duty leviable on the instrument requiring registration or otherwise.

The prima donna grievance of the Petitioner as court noted is that the compromise decree as passed by the courts in the suits for partition and separate possession and or by the Lok Adalat, is not compulsorily registrable document under the provisions of the Act of 1908. The Revenue Authorities are insisting for the Registration of the documents and payment of stamp duty as per the valuation of the property for mutating the names in the revenue records .

Section 17(1) of the Act of 1908 prescribes the documents of which Registration is compulsory. Sub section 2 of section 17 carves out an exception. The documents / instruments enumerated in sub section 2 of section 17 of the Act of 1908 are not compulsorily registrable. The decree or order of the court is covered under section 17 (2)(vi) of the Act of 1908. Under the said provision, any decree or order of a court (except the decree or order expressed to be made on compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceedings) would not require compulsory registration. Section 17(2) (vi) of the Act of 1908 carves out the distinction between the property which forms subject matter of the suit and the property that was not the subject matter of the suit but for which the compromise has been arrived at. If the compromise decree involves the immovable property other than the decree involved, such a property would not be exempted and would require registration. If a compromise decree is arrived at in respect of the property that is the subject matter of the Suit then the compromise decree does not require compulsory registration. The compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat and the award passed by the Lok Adalat thereto assumes the character of a decree and would also come within the ambit and purview of sub section 2 of section 17 of the Act, 1908.

This brings to the Court the second limb of the matter viz. payment of stamp duty. The stamp duty payable upon the documents is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1958. The documents in the State of Maharashtra are governed by the provisions of the Act of 1958. The payment of stamp duty on an instrument of partition finds place under Article 46 of the Act of 1958.

As a general rule, the stamp duty on an instrument of partition is 2% of the amount or the market value of the separate share or shares of the property. As per the note appended thereto, the largest share remaining after property is partitioned or if there are two or more shares of equal value and not smaller than any of the other shares, then one of such equal shares shall be deemed to be that from which the other shares are separated. Proviso (a) and (b) to section 46 further provide for certain exemptions.

The Court is concerned with proviso (b) in the present case. In view of proviso (b), where the instrument relates to the partition of agricultural land, the rate of duty applicable shall be 100/.

The compromise decree of an agricultural land in respect of property that is the subject matter of the Suit is not required to be compulsorily registered under the provisions of the Act of 1908 and the Stamp Duty on such a document would not be more than 100%. Proviso (c) to section 46 of the Act of 1958 further provides that where a final order for effecting a partition is passed by any Revenue Authority or any Civil Court or an award by an arbitrator directing a partition, is stamped with the stamp required for an instrument or partition, and an instrument of partition in pursuance of such order or award is subsequently executed, the duty on such instrument shall not exceed Rs.10/-.

Section 46 of the Act of 1958 in its entirety along with its provisos, an irresistible conclusion can be drawn i.e. a compromise decree effectuating partition of an agricultural land does not require compulsory registration in view of section 17(2) (vi) of the Act of 1908 and it would also not require payment of the stamp duty on valuation of the property, but would be governed by the proviso (b) and (c) of section 46 of the Act of 1958.

The Circular impugned by the petitioner does not only deal with the decree in case of partition suit but is of general nature that would also include the non-agricultural properties and different modes of transfers through various instruments.

” The impugned Circular shall be read in a manner that the compromise decree of the court and/or the Lok Adalat in respect of agricultural land that is the subject matter of the Suit is not compulsorily registrable and would not attract stamp duty on the market value of the property but in accordance with the proviso (b) and (c) of section 46 of the Act of 1958″, the order reads.

By Chaya Singhal

Abstract

This research paper talks about registration and the law of registration in India. The law of Registration Act has been now amended quite a many times. At the end of this research paper, you will be able to analyse purpose, scope and legislative philosophy of Sections 17, 18, and 49 of the Registration Act of 1908. Registration is a term which is used in the legal as well as the official language.

This research paper also talks about how the law of registration act was evolved and what were the objectives of the same. The main objective of registering a document is basically to prevent fraud. Registration of both movable and immovable property can be done. Movable property is a property which can be moved from a particular place to another, whereas immovable property is the property which is attached to the Earth and cannot be moved from one place to another. But immovable property does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass.

Introduction

Registration is a term that is used in legal and official language. Section 17 of the Registration Act of 1908 regulates registration, and paying stamp duty is a prerequisite for registration. Within four months of the date the agreements were signed, all documents must be registered. The documents of sale and purchase of immovable property must be registered in order to preserve evidence, prevent fraud and guarantee title. In order to guarantee title, prevent fraud and preserve evidence, the Registration Act of 1908 mandates the registration of various documents.

To let the world know that a document has been signed, it is necessary to register it. A document’s registration does not confer title to the property as stated in the document; rather, it provides evidence that such transactions were registered, which could be used to establish title to the property.

A “No Objection Certificate” from the relevant authorities is required for the registration of documents pertaining to the conveyance of government, local or religious property.

A document is registered with a designated authority in order to be kept as a public record. The Act’s goal is to codify the legislation governing registration, and it outlines the process for doing so. It specifies the paperwork that must be submitted in order to register. Additionally, it sets a deadline for the presentation and registration of documents and guarantees that there are provisions for their correct preparation and presentation.

Literature Review

From the book, “Registration Act, 1908” from “Lawmann’s” it was easier to gain the knowledge about the different sections and were able to understand that what documents are to be registered mandatorily under Section 17 and what documents are optional under section 18.

In the article “Understand property and its registration under laws of India” by Lalit Jain, the definition of movable and immovable property were clearly defined and there the concepts of property and how it can be registered under the laws of India could be understood.

From the research paper, “Brief overview on Registration Act 1908” by “Mahamudul Hasan Rakib” from “Daffodil International University,” I was able to understand the brief history of the Registration Act and what were the reasons behind the establishment of the Act.

From the case Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs State of Haryana & Anr, it was inferred that transactions of the type of ‘General Power of Attorney Sales ‘, ‘Sale by Agreement to Sell’, or ‘Transfer by Will’ are incapable of conveying the title and  they cannot be recognised as acceptable modes of immovable property transfer.

Such transactions are, therefore, not to be treated as finished or concluded transfers or conveyances by the courts because they do not convey title or create any interest in real property

From the case “Debi Singh Bhujil v Tek Bahadur Bhujil”, it was inferred that for a document to be proved as an evidence in the courts, the registration is mandatory, if it required as per the document. This is because the document is like a title that says for the future which rights, claims, or properties each member of the family will get.

Research Methodology

This research paper follows the method of doctrinal research. Using this method, “a researcher composes a descriptive and detailed analysis of legal rules found in primary sources” (cases, statutes, or regulations). This research is also based on secondary sources such as articles, books and blogs.

Research Question

1. How was the Registration Act evolved?
2. What are the documents which need to be registered under Registration Act, 1908?
3. What are the effects of non-registration?

Research Objective

The main objective of this research is to analyse how the Registration Act, 1908 was amended and what was need for the same in India. This research paper also tried to study the various aspects of non-registration of documents.

Analysis

What is registration?

Registration is a term that is used in legal and official language. Section 17 of the Registration Act of 1908 regulates registration and paying stamp duty is a prerequisite for registration. Within four months of the date the agreements were signed, all documents must be registered. The documents of sale and purchase of immovable property must be registered in order to preserve evidence, prevent fraud, and guarantee title. In order to guarantee title, prevent fraud, and preserve evidence, the Registration Act of 1908 mandates the registration of various documents.[1]

Registration of Documents

The Registration Act of 1908 governs the process of document registration. Documents and instruments are more authentic when properly recorded and registered under the Registration Act of 1908.

A document’s contents are recorded with a State Government-appointed Registering Officer during registration. Any district or parcel of land may be excluded from State Government operations. The crucial task of preserving copies of the original document is performed by the Registering Officer.

The Act regulates transactions between individuals that are reduced to writing and specifies whether such written instruments must be registered or not, depending on the circumstances. It doesn’t talk about transactions that can’t be written down.

There are 93 sections and one schedule in this Act’s XV PARTS.

With the exception of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Registration Act of 1908 applies to the entirety of India.

History of the Registration Act, 1908

Numerous laws governing the registration of documents existed in British India prior to 1864. Each of the provinces of Bengal, Bombay, and Madras had regulations that required documents to be registered. [2]

Act XVI of 1864 was the first comprehensive law regulating the registration of documents. It combined and amended all previous laws governing the registration of assurances. It also abolished provisions limiting the rights of priority to registered deeds as opposed to unregistered documents of the same nature and introduced a system of compulsory registration for the first time in British India for certain clauses of the documents.

However, even under this Act, documents that were optionally registerable were given priority over documents that were compulsorily registerable. Therefore, if two documents A and B were both optionally registrable and one of them was registered, A would have priority over B.

On the other hand, if A was compulsorily registerable and B was optionally registerable, the fact that A was registered did not grant it priority over B. Act XX of 1866 further consolidated and amended the law governing the registration of assurances. Act VIII of 1871 added to it another time. Act III of 1877 made amendments to the Act of 1871.For the first time, the Act of 1877 made it possible to give priority to registered documents, regardless of whether they had to be registered or not.

The Indian Registration Act of 1908, also known as Act No. XVI of 1908, was passed to consolidate legislation pertaining to document registration. The Indian Registration Act of 1908 was the previous name of the Registration Act of 1908. Act No. 26 of 1969 omitted the word “Indian” from the Act’s title on December 26 of 1969.

Is registration process mandatory?

All transactions involving the sale of an immovable property for more than Rs 100 must be recorded, per Section 17 of the Registration Act of 1908. [3]

Since no immovable property can be purchased for just Rs 100, this effectively means that all sales of immovable property must be registered. The Act’s Section 17(1) mandates the required registration of the following documents:

• Instruments of the gifts of immoveable property
• documents that are not testamentary and signify the operation, declaration, assignment, limitation, and termination of any right, title, or interest in immovable property worth more than one hundred rupees.
• Leases of such immovable property for a term exceeding one year or reservation of yearly rent”.
• The documents that establish, limit, or assign a person’s interest in immovable property must be worth more than one hundred rupees. A document that creates an interest in immovable property with a current or future value of more than one hundred rupees must be registered.
• Contracts involving the transfer of any immovable property in exchange for consideration, as defined in Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, executed after the Registration and Other Related Laws Amendment Act of 2001

It should be mentioned that the State Government has the authority to disallow any lease signed in any district or portion of a district with periods more than five years and yearly rentals greater than fifty rupees.

Optional Registration of Documents

There are quite a many documents which are mentioned under the Section 18 of the Registration Act which mention the documents whose registration is optional [4]. Some of them are:

1. Adoption Deed
2. Wills
3. Debenture which is issued by The joint stock company
4. Power of Attorney
5. Leases of property that do not exceed a limit of 1 year and the leases exempted under Section 17.

Where can documents be registered?

According to Section 28 of this Act, all papers pertaining to real estate must be submitted to the sub-registrar’s office of the subdistrict in which the whole or a portion of the property is located for registration. If there are exceptional circumstances, the officer may visit the home of someone wishing to deposit a will or deliver a document for registration mentioned under Section-31 of the act.

Objective of registration

The main objective for getting a document registered is to provide a method for the public registration of documents to inform people of their legal rights and responsibilities regarding a specific property, preserve documents that may later be of legal importance, and deter fraud. The objectives can be:

1. The safeguarding of evidence
2. ensuring title, making documents more visible, and stopping fraud.
3. A prospective customer’s interest is protected by registration.

Effects of non-registration of documents

Although, registration is not mandatory in certain fields but it is stated that getting a document registered increases the volume of the same. The effects which are caused due to the non-registration of the documents are mentioned in Section-49 of the act. [5]

The effects can be:

1. Inoperativeness of document

Any right, title, or interest in or to immovable property, whether vested or contingent, shall not be created, declared, assigned, limited, or extinguished by any document required to be registered under this Act or any prior law providing for or relating to registration of documents.

• No conferment of power to adopt

A deed of adoption that is not properly registered, as required by Section 17 of the Registration Act, is in violation of this section and will not grant any authority to adopt.

• Inadmissibility as evidence

A document that must be registered but has not been can’t be used as proof of creation, etc., of any interest, title, or right in specific immovable property. Non-registration decimates an instrument’s evidential value, but it can be used as evidence in some collateral transactions.

In the case of “Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil” the court said that if a document about a family arrangement is written so that it can be used as proof, it must be registered.[6] This is because the document is like a title that says for the future which rights, claims, or properties each member of the family will get.

• Admissibility for collateral transaction

However, such a document can be admitted to prove an admission of a party with regard to the character of the property, i.e., whether it is joint or otherwise, even though it is required by law to be registered and cannot be received in evidence of any transaction affecting such property under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

Case laws

1. In the case known as “Narinder Singh Rao v Avm Mahinder Singh Rao[7]“, it was held that  the decedent’s will made it clear that the property would go to the decedent’s wife. In her unregistered will, signed by only one witness, the widow left the entire estate to one of her nine children. The resentful children took their mother to court, arguing that the will was against the law and that they were also entitled to their father’s wealth. The Supreme Court ruled that the will was invalid because it was not confirmed by two witnesses, and the children were entitled to the property as a result. It can be concluded that if the will was registered then the will would not have been held invalid.
2. In the case “Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs State of Haryana & Anr[8]”, it was held by the learned bench of three judges who made it clear that a registered deed of conveyance is the only way to legally transfer or convey immovable property. To put it another way, transactions that fall under the headings of “GPA sales” or “Sale agreement/ General power of attorney sale/WILL transfers” neither constitute a transfer nor are they recognized as a valid method of transferring immovable property as outlined in Section 53 A of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In addition, they believed that decision should be applied prospectively to avoid difficulty. However, the Sale agreement and Will transactions that have been accepted by the Delhi DA or other developmental authorities or by the municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation and need not be disturbed were excluded from this judgment.
3. In the case “Naginbhai P Desai vs Taraben A Sheth[9]” it was held by the court that he Indian Registration Act of 1908 does not recognize a sale agreement as a conveyance. It cannot produce a new title and cannot be used as an admissible proof in the court.
4. In the case “Hansia vs Bakhtawarmal & Ors[10]”, the question was how far an unregistered document that had to be registered under Section 17 of this act could be used in the case. A mortgage deed that was not registered was the document in question. A suit for recovery based on an unregistered mortgage deed is bound to fail because the purpose of the mortgage deed is to demonstrate the mortgage. A mortgage deed that has not been registered can only be used as collateral, as stated in Section 49 of the Registration Act. In a claim for possession, the plaintiff can only use the unregistered deed to demonstrate possession, not in a redemption suit. Consequently, redemption litigation cannot benefit from Section 49 of the Act. The Registration Act of 1908 stipulates that documents must be registered before they can be used for collateral.

Conclusion

We can conclude by saying that To let the world know that a document has been signed, it is necessary to register it. As discussed, we know that under Section-18 there are many documents that have the option of optional registration, getting a document registered always has an positive effect. The Registration Act has been amended quite a many times so as to consolidate legislation pertaining to document registration. Non- registration of a document can cause a lot of trouble and cannot be used as a collateral or an admissible proof in the court.

Bibliography

Narinder Singh Rao v Avm Mahinder Singh Rao, Civil appeal 6918-6919 of 2011 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MARCH 22, 2013).

Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs State of Haryana & Anr, 2009(7) SCC 363 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OCTOBER 11, 2011).

Hansia v. Bakhtawarmal & ors, AIR 1958 RAJ 102 (RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT OCTOBER 8, 1957).

Tek Bahadur Bhujil v Debi Singh Bhujil, AIR 1966 SC 292 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FEBRUARY 26, 1965).

Hassan, M. (2015). Brief overview on Registration Act, 1908. Academia.

Naginbhai P. Desai vs Taraben A. Sheth, AIR 2003 Bom 192 (BOMBAY HIGH COURT NOVEMBER 22, 2002).

JAIN, L. (2020, JUNE 16). UNDERSTANDING PROPERTY AND ITS REGISTRATION UNDER LAWS OF INDIA. CORPORATE LAW, pp. 1-2.

Shaik, U. (2022). Effect of registration and non registration under the registration act,1908. bnw journal.

 Shivam Goel, The Registration Act, 1908: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 1908 Act

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314424567_The_Registration_Act_1908_Critical_Analysis_of_the_1908_Act

Rahul sharma, All about the registrations Act, 1908

https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/all-about-the-registration-act-1908

Uzma Shaik, Effect of registration and non registration under the registration act,1908

https://bnwjournal.com/2020/08/09/effect-of-registration-and-non-registration-under-the-registration-act-1908/

http://www.commonlii.org/pk/other/PKLJC/reports/67.html

[1] Lalit Jain, Understanding Property and its Registration under Laws of India (2020)

[2] Mahamudul Hassan, Brief overview on Registration Act,1908 (2015)

[3] Shivam Goel, The Registration Act, 1908: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 1908 Act

[4] Rahul sharma, All about the registrations Act, 1908

[5] Uzma Shaik, Effect of registration and non-registration under the registration act,1908

[6] Tek Bahadur Bhujil v Debi Singh Bhujil, AIR 1966 SC 292

[7] Narinder Singh Rao v Avm Mahinder Singh Rao, 6918-6919 OF 2011

[8] Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs State of Haryana & Anr, 2009(7) SCC 363

[9] Naginbhai P Desai vs Taraben A Sheth, AIR 2003 BOM 192

[10] Hansia v. Bakhtawarmal, AIR 1958 RAJ 102

Chaya Singhal is a third-year student of
LLB (Hons), studying in Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bangalore. She has already completed her BBA.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition challenging the orders passed by the Lower Court dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the plaintiff/petitioners .

The brief facts relevant to the matter is that the plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction averring therein that they were the owners in possession of Residential Plot No.2 in Mauja Garhi Bohar, Tehsil and District Rohtak. It was further averred that the plaintiff-petitioner No.1 had paid an amount of Rs 15 lakh on 27.08.2013 and an amount of Rs 20 lakh on 25.10.2013 to one Wazir Chand, who had thereafter executed a written agreement to sell in their favour on 03.09.2015 for a total sale consideration of Rs 66,98,000 which included the Rs 35 lakh mentioned above.

Wazir Chand handed over possession to the plaintiff-petitioners and the plaintiff-petitioners had constructed a boundary wall on the plot and had installed a gate and the same was in their possession since then. Wazir Chand did not execute the sale deed despite being requested numerous times and a suit for specific performance was also pending qua the same.

The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents who took the plea that the suit property was initially owned by Kitabo (defendant-respondent No.3) and Rajesh and Rakesh (defendant/ respondent Nos.4 and 5) who had sold the suit property to Sumitra Devi (defendant/respondent No.2) vide a registered sale deed dated 24.07.2018 who further sold the same vide a registered sale deed dated 17.07.2019 in favour of defendant-respondent No.1.

The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC vide the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 holding therein that the plaintiff- petitioners were not able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and nor the balance of convenience was in their favour. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-petitioners which was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2022. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners stated that in a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff-petitioners were required to show that they were in possession of the suit property and their possession of the suit property was clearly discernible from the recital in the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2015 executed by Wazir Chand in their favour. It is further the contention of the counsel that the plaintiff-petitioners had purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs 66,98,000 and had hence become the owners in possession.

On a pointed query by the single bench of Justice Alka Sarin as to how the possession of the plaintiff-petitioners was established from the documents produced by them, the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners submitted that the same was discernible from the recital in the agreement to sell dated 03.09.2015 wherein it was stated that the possession had been handed over to the plaintiff/ petitioners.

The Bench opined that prima facie there is no sale deed in favour of Wazir Chand qua the suit property which has been produced on the record. On the contrary, there is a registered sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent No.1 who had purchased the suit property in question from Sumitra Devi (defendant-respondent No.2) who was the owner of the suit property on the basis of another registered sale deed dated 24.07.2018. Besides the recital in the alleged agreement to sell dated 03.09.2015, there is no documentary evidence on the record to show the possession of the plaintiff/petitioners.

“The agreement to sell dated 03.09.2015 is also an unregistered document whereunder possession was purportedly handed over to the plaintiff/petitioners. Such an unregistered document cannot be accepted being in contravention of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. In the absence of any document showing the possession of the plaintiff-petitioners, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. The plaintiff/petitioners have not been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction in their favour and neither is the balance of convenience in their favour,” the Court observed.