S.26 Specific emergency aid law | Without any rectification in registered instruments, the income data cannot be corrected: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court while explaining Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has emphasized that rectification of an instrument is imperative if the true intention of the parties is not manifested due to mutual mistake.

Judge Ananda Sennoticed, “Since their records were based on the registered sale deed and settlement deed, those instruments need to be corrected first, after which only the revenue record could have been corrected. To get these instruments corrected, the petitioner had to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In this case, without getting adequate compensation under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, the Petitioner has had the income data corrected. This was not the correct procedure. So far as the inquiry report is concerned, the same may be an exhibit in favor of the petitioner in the suit filed under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.”

The case revolves around a piece of land initially settled in the name of Babu Bipin Bihari Choudhary, documented through a registered settlement deed, bearing plot numbers 381 and 382. Subsequently, this land was sold to Babu Ram Singh and Bihari Lal Jalan. via a deed of sale, whereby the plot numbers remained the same. Further transactions, including the sale of Babu Ram Singh to Bihari’s son Lal Jalan, continued with the same plot numbers.

Later, during a partition case over the joint family property, which included the above-mentioned land, it was revealed that the actual plot numbers were 391, 392 and 393. This discrepancy was present in all recorded documents, including sale deeds and court documents. where the plot numbers were consistently listed as 381 and 382.

In an attempt to rectify the error, the petitioner submitted a request to the circle officer to change the plot numbers in the revenue records, which was approved. However, when the petitioner sought assurance from the Deputy Commissioner that no further portions of the plots would be sold by registered deed until the correction was made, the application was rejected. The Deputy Commissioner insisted on correcting the registered deed first.

Not satisfied with this response, the applicant filed a petition seeking damages.

Petitioner’s counsel argued that since the income records had already been corrected, the defendants had no basis to revoke the restraining order. Furthermore, it was argued that the Deputy Commissioner’s decision lacked independent judgment as it relied solely on the opinion of the government advocate. Furthermore, it was pointed out that under Section 3 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Circle Officer has the power to correct any incorrect entries.

Alternatively, the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot recover damages unless the error in the registered deeds is corrected. They further submitted that under the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the circle officer has no power to make amendments unless the deed is corrected by the competent authority.

The Court noted: “Under the provision of this section, if, owing to mutual mistake of the parties, in any instrument, their real intention is not reflected, an action may be instituted for the rectification of the instrument. In this case, according to the petitioner, an error appeared in the recorded instruments regarding the plot numbers, which was due to mutual errors. Until and unless the said deed is rectified and the plot numbers in the deeds and in the deeds are corrected, the petitioner will not benefit therefrom.”

While noting the petitioner’s claim that the tax records have already been corrected by the tax officials, the Court held that the said correction could not have been made without correcting the parent document. Without the settlement deed, the sale deed, being corrected, the tax authorities do not derive any authority to correct the turnover data. it said.

“It is true that the tax authorities investigated and found that there were errors in the registration, but that finding does not grant the tax authorities jurisdiction to correct their data.” the Court added.

The Court, therefore, directed the petitioner to approach an appropriate civil court of competent jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act and get the instruments corrected.

Once the petitioner receives an order under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, the petitioner is free to approach the Deputy Commissioner or the Registering Authority and inform the authorities about the correction made in the parent instrument by which the petitioner claims ownership of the property in question, it said.

“It is open to the authorities to allow the petitioner to deal with the land title claimed by him through the settlement deeds, sale deeds and decree.” the Court said when considering the request.

Case Title: Makhan Lal Jalan V. The State of Jharkhand

LL citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 75

Click here to read the verdict