23.02.2009, which was much after the introduction of the said amendment in Section 32A, on 24.09.2001. On scrutiny of the said document, what is seen is that of the four executants to the document viz., three sellers (joint) and one purchaser, only one passport size photograph of one of the sellers is affixed and the passport photographs of the remaining three persons, including the purchaser, namely, first respondent/plaintiff, are not affixed. Since the present transaction took place much after the introduction of the said amendment, it is mandatory to affix the passport size photographs of all the parties to the document. However, as already stated just earlier, the document in question sans the said requirement. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ex. A- 1, Sale Agreement, has been properly registered. When the provision makes it imperative as to the affixation of passport size photographs of all the parties to the document, this Court is at a loss to understand how the registering authority, without verifying as to the fulfillment of the said requirement, blindly proceed to register the document. When the intent of the Legislature in inserting the said provision 32-A in the Registration Act is to prevent impersonation of the parties to the transaction and fraud, the conduct of the authorities in ignoring the said provision is to be highly deprecated. This is very unfortunate. Also, it is significant to note that just because it has been held hereinabove that the document herein has not been properly registered, the transaction of the document cannot be doubted or ignored, as, in this case, the appellant/defendant has categorically admitted the signatures of his father and himself in the sale agreement and, in addition, he admitted the passport size photograph of his father also in the document. His only contention is that their signatures in the document were obtained by coercion. Were the said contention true, he would have very well defended the same by producing sufficient proof, which is, admittedly, not done. In this regard, his only stand is that he filed a police complaint, which, as could be seen by this Court, was after four years, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be accepted.
