There is a contract to be signed between 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' on one hand and 'E' on the other hand. As per the arrangement the contract has to be first signed by 'A' and 'E' on 02.03.2013. Then 'B', 'C' and 'D' object to this by contending that the document can be registered only after 02.09.2013. Decide on whether the document can be registered on 01.06.2013?

The contention raised by B, C and D — that the document can be registered only after 02.03.2013 plus six months, i.e., not before 02.09.2013 — is legally unsustainable. The document can validly be presented for registration on 01.06.2013, provided that B, C, and D have themselves executed the document by that date, since Section 24 of the Registration Act, 1908 computes the time for presentation from the date of each executant's signature, and where a document is multipartite, time under Section 23 does not even begin to run until the last of the executants has signed.

The Governing Provision — Section 24

Section 24 provides that "where there are several persons executing a document at different times, such document may be presented for registration and re-registration within four months from the date of each execution." This section applies precisely to a case such as this one, where there are more than two parties to a single contract — A, B, C, D on one side and E on the other — and they do not all execute the document on the same date.

The settled judicial interpretation of Section 24, as explained in S.D. Raveendra Prasad v. State of Kerala and traceable to the Privy Council's reasoning in Mohammed Ewaz v. Brij Lal, is that a multipartite instrument represents a consensus ad idem among all its signatories, and such consensus cannot be said to be truly and completely documented unless every party to it has actually executed the document. Consequently, the four-month period prescribed under Section 23 for presentation of the document does not commence to run until the last of the executants signs — not from the date on which the first executant (here, A, along with E) put pen to paper.

Applying This to the Facts

Here, A and E executed the contract on 02.03.2013. B, C, and D had not yet executed it as of that date. The contention advanced by B, C, and D — that the document can only be registered after 02.09.2013, six months after A and E's execution — misapplies the law in two respects.

First, Section 24 fixes the outer limit for presentation at four months from each execution, not six months; there is no six-month period contemplated anywhere in Section 23, 24, or 25 of the Act. The only extension recognised by the Act, under Section 25, is a further four months beyond the ordinary four-month period, and even that extension applies only where there is urgent necessity or unavoidable accident — a circumstance not pleaded here at all.

Second, and more fundamentally, B, C, and D have confused the starting point of the limitation period with an artificial waiting period. The correct legal position is that the time for presenting the document for registration begins to run only once the last of the executants — whether that is B, C, or D, whichever of them signs last — has executed the document. There is no principle under the Registration Act that requires the parties to wait for six months (or any fixed period) after the first executants have signed before the document can be registered; on the contrary, the moment all the intended executants (A, B, C, D, and E) have signed the document, it becomes a completely executed instrument, and the four-month clock for presentation runs from that date of completion.

Illustration Applied

If B, C, and D execute the document, say, on 15.05.2013 (thereby completing execution by all five parties), the contract becomes fully executed as a multipartite instrument only on that date. Since 01.06.2013 falls comfortably within four months of 15.05.2013, the document can be validly presented for registration on 01.06.2013, and the registering officer would be entirely justified in accepting it. The earlier execution by A and E on 02.03.2013 is of no consequence in fixing the outer limit for presentation, since Section 24, properly construed, treats the document as one continuous transaction that matures into a complete instrument only when the last signatory executes it.

Even if B, C, and D had, for some reason, delayed their own execution and only signed on a date closer to 01.06.2013 itself, the document could still be presented on that very date, since Section 23 requires presentation within four months from execution, not any minimum waiting period before presentation — the Act nowhere prohibits prompt presentation immediately after execution is completed.

Conclusion

The objection of B, C, and D that registration can only occur after 02.09.2013 has no basis in the Registration Act. Section 24 fixes only an outer limit of four months from the date of each execution (and, by settled interpretation, from the date of the last execution in a multipartite document) — it does not impose any minimum waiting period. Accordingly, provided B, C, and D have executed the document on or before 01.06.2013 (or on some date bringing 01.06.2013 within four months of their execution), the document can be validly presented and registered on 01.06.2013, and there is no legal impediment arising from A and E's earlier execution on 02.03.2013.

Comparative Summary