When the document executed by several persons at different time may be presented for registration?

Presentation of Documents Executed by Several Persons at Different Times

Where a document is executed by more than two parties and they do not all execute it on the same date, Section 24 of the Registration Act, 1908 permits such a document to be presented for registration and re-registration within four months from the date of each execution — the crucial consequence being that the four-month period under Section 23 does not begin to run until the last of the several executants has actually put his signature to the document.

The Statutory Text — 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." Though the language on its face appears to permit a kind of "partial registration" — registration qua each executant computed from his own individual date of execution — the practical and settled effect of the provision, as recognised in judicial interpretation, is that the time available under Section 23 does not commence to run at all until the very last of the executants signs the document.

Scope and Rationale

Section 24 has a limited application. It is confined to cases where there are more than two parties to a document, and where those parties do not all execute it on the same date or fail to appear before the registering officer simultaneously. The provision does not apply where a document is merely presented for registration by one of several parties purporting to act on behalf of all — that situation is governed by the ordinary rules on agency and power of attorney under Sections 32 and 33, not by Section 24, as clarified by the Madras High Court in M. Shyamala v. Seven Hills Constructions.

The underlying rationale is rooted in the very nature of a multipartite instrument. Where several parties execute a document in pursuance of a consensus ad idem reached among themselves, that consensus cannot be said to be truly and completely documented until every party to it has actually signed. A multipartite instrument is, therefore, treated as not fully "executed," in the legal sense relevant to the Registration Act, until the last of the parties affixes his signature or thumbprint. Consequently, the time for presentation under Section 23 begins to run only from that final date of execution, not from the date on which the first party signed.

Illustration

Suppose a deed of partition is executed by A, B, and C — co-owners of an ancestral property — but they sign the document on three separate dates: A on 1 January, B on 15 February, and C on 10 April. Under Section 24, the document may be presented for registration within four months of each executant's individual signing, but since the deed as a complete, consensual instrument comes into existence only when the last signatory, C, executes it on 10 April, the effective four-month period under Section 23 runs from 10 April, giving the parties until roughly 10 August to present the document for registration — not from the earlier dates on which A or B signed.

Registration and Re-registration

Section 24 speaks of both "presentation for registration" and "re-registration," contemplating the possibility that different executants may appear at different times, and the deed may accordingly be registered in stages or supplemented as further executants come forward and admit execution. This mechanism recognises the practical reality of multi-party transactions, where it may be impossible to secure the simultaneous presence of all executants, and allows the registering process to accommodate staggered appearances without treating each late appearance as a fresh, independent presentation subject to its own four-month clock running from the date of the document as a whole.

State Amendment — Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh has substituted its own version of Section 24, which more explicitly ties the computation of the time limit to the date of the last execution rather than each individual execution: the substituted provision states that such documents "may be presented for registration and re-registration within four months from the date of last execution." This amendment essentially codifies, in express statutory language, the interpretation that courts had already arrived at under the unamended Central provision — namely, that the operative date for computing the Section 23 time limit in a multipartite document is the date on which the last executant signs.

Judicial Treatment

The settled judicial position, confirmed most recently by the Kerala High Court in S.D. Raveendra Prasad v. State of Kerala, is that although Section 24 speaks in terms permitting registration within four months of each execution, the true effect of the provision, when read in light of the nature of multipartite instruments, is that the time under Section 23 does not commence to run until the last of the executants executes the instrument in question. The court explained that a multipartite instrument, being the product of a consensus ad idem among all its signatories, cannot be regarded as fully and finally executed unless every party to it has put pen to paper; hence the limitation period is anchored to that final act of execution, not to the earliest signature on the document.

This principle traces back to the older Privy Council decision in Mohammed Ewaz v. Brij Lal, which recognised, in a related context, that a document executed by several persons at different times is not complete for registration purposes until all the intended executants have signed, reinforcing the view that the section contemplates the possibility of partial registration as to persons, while anchoring the overall limitation period to the date of the last execution.

Comparative Summary