The Allahabad High Court has ruled that serious allegations of fraud and fabrication do not permit a writ court to conduct a full-fledged trial involving oral evidence, witness credibility and disputed questions of fact. Justice Irshad Ali made the observation while dismissing a petition challenging an order directing registration of a disputed 1989 agreement to sell land.
The Court held that the petitioners had not established sufficient grounds to interfere with the statutory authority’s decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background
The petition was filed by Rajendra Kumar and another against the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents. The dispute concerned an agreement to sell dated April 30, 1989, allegedly executed by their father, late Chotey Lal, concerning land measuring approximately 5 bighas and 11 biswas in the former Faizabad district.
The petitioners alleged that their father had borrowed Rs. 40,000 and signed stamp papers without knowing their intended purpose. According to them, those papers were subsequently used to prepare an agreement to sell, which their father had never executed.
The Sub-Registrar refused registration in January 1990. However, the District Registrar, through an order dated March 30, 2017, directed registration after considering the evidence, including testimony from witnesses and a handwriting expert’s opinion. The petitioners challenged that decision before the High Court.
The Court rejected the argument that the proceedings were automatically invalid because of the statutory provision initially invoked. It held that Sections 71 to 75 of the Registration Act, 1908, had to be considered together, along with the substance of the proceedings and the authority’s jurisdiction.
On the allegations of fraud, Justice Irshad Ali observed:
“The Court is conscious that the petitioners have made serious allegations of fraud, fabrication and misuse of signatures. Such allegations are undoubtedly serious. However, the seriousness of an allegation does not, by itself, convert the writ court into a court of first instance for recording oral evidence, testing the credibility of witnesses and deciding disputed questions of fact.”
The Court noted that the registration authority had relied on relevant material, including witness testimony and expert opinion. It found no sufficient basis to re-examine the evidence as though the High Court were hearing an appeal against every factual finding.
The judgment further clarified:
“There can be no quarrel with the proposition that registration proceedings cannot be converted into a plenary adjudication of complicated questions of title, ownership or ultimate enforceability of an agreement. However, in the facts of the present case, the question of execution of the document was directly relevant to the statutory issue of registration and the authority could not have decided the appeal without examining the material bearing upon such execution.”
The Court also rejected the plea of denial of natural justice, noting that the parties had participated in the proceedings, filed objections and placed evidence on record.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the March 30, 2017 order directing registration of the agreement. It clarified that the judgment did not finally decide the agreement’s validity, enforceability, specific performance or the parties’ ownership rights.
The pending civil suit was directed to be pursued expeditiously, preferably within eight months, subject to the conditions specified in the judgment.
The interim status quo order was vacated, subject to any subsequent order passed by a competent court.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Through Secretary, Taxation and Registration, Lucknow and Others
Case Number: Writ-C No. 11162 of 2017
Judge: Justice Irshad Ali
Decision Date: October 16, 2026
