Dismissed

Om Parkash Mehta v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2012CWP/2621/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought authority to compare thumb impressions on a certified certified copy of a will via fingerprint expert under Section 57 of the Registration Act. The court held the certified copy was sufficient compliance and no such right exists under Section 57. The application to examine the document from the fingerprint expert was not granted as it was not contemplated by law, and the petition

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed being devoid of merit as Section 57 does not grant the right to get the document examined from a fingerprint expert.

Om Parkash Mehta Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.2621 of 2010

¶3

Date of decision : 10.5.2012

Om Parkash Mehta

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.Ashok Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The petitioner has filed the instant petition stating that he being an advocate and having been engaged by his client to give an opinion regarding the authenticity/veracity/genuineness of the Will applied for a copy thereof in the office of Sub-Registrar. The certified copy was supplied to him but the petitioner insisted upon making the document available in order to further establish its veracity/genuineness by getting the thumb impressions compared by the fingerprint expert.

¶14

The prayer having been declined by the competent authority, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

¶15

Making a grievance of the action of the respondents reference has been made to Section 57 of the Registration Act, which

¶16

C.W.P.No.2621 of 2010 -2-

¶17

is extracted herebelow :-

¶18

“ 57. Registering Officers to allow inspection of certain

¶19

books and indexes, and to give certified copies of entries . --(1) Subject to the previous payment of the fees payable in that behalf, the Books Nos.1 and 2 and the Indexes relating to Book No.1 shall be at all time open to inspection by any person applying to inspect the same; and, subject to the provisions of section 62, copies of entries in such books shall be given to all persons applying for such copies.

¶20

(2) Subject to the same provisions, copies of entries in Book No.3 and in the Index relating thereto shall be given to the persons executing the documents to which such entries relate, or to their agents, and after the death of the executants (but not before) to any person applying for such copies.”

¶21

(3) Subject to the same provisions, copies of entries in Book No.4 and in the Index relating thereto shall be given to any person executing or claiming under the documents to which such entries respectively refer, or to his agent or representative.

¶22

(4) The requisite search under this section for entries in Book Nos.3 and 4 shall be made only by the registering officer.

¶23

(5) All copies given under this section shall be signed and

¶24

C.W.P.No.2621 of 2010 -3-

¶25

sealed by the registering officer, and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he being an agent is entitled to copy of the document and is also entitled to get the same inspected from the fingerprint expert to get an opinion about the veracity/genuineness of the thumb impressions.

¶27

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity, rather the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner suffers from a deep fallacy and is based on misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 57 of the Act which only enables an agent of the executant or any person deriving a right from the executant to get a certified copy of the document and also is enabled to inspect the same.

¶28

It is undisputed that the certified copy of the document in question has been given to the petitioner and, therefore, this is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 57 of the Act as it does not lay down that such an agent is also entitled to get the document examined from a fingerprint expert or any other agency to establish the veracity/genuineness of the same. Such a Will or for the purpose of any other registered document/instrument can be questioned by a person who denies or suspects the existence of such a document by taking recourse to adequate proceedings in the court of competent jurisdiction by filing an appropriate suit where such issues of genuineness of documents can be raised and established.

¶29

C.W.P.No.2621 of 2010 -4-

¶30

No provisions of law has been brought to the notice of the Court except the aforesaid on the basis of which the prayer of the petitioner can be granted.

¶31

Consequently, finding no infirmity with the impugned reply/communication which is in complete conformity with the mandate of Section 57 of the Act, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is misconceived and being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶32

10.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶33

dss

Om Parkash Mehta v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash Mehta v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manmohan Singh and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner, Pb and Ors.

Mahinder Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Inder Singh Vs Chairman Bar Council of Bar Association, Chd & Anr.

Dashnami Akhara Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ravi Chhabra & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jagat Singh Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr.