Dismissed

Deivasigamani v. Kittathal

Madras HC14 Oct 2024WA/2958/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by Deivasigamani against an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. The Court held that Registration Authorities cannot decide rights between co-owners under a preliminary decree; aggrieved parties must approach the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Deivasigamani Vs Kittathal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶8

W.A.No.2958 of 2024 and

¶9

C.M.P.No.22071 of 2024

Deivasigamani

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Kittathal

¶14

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,

¶15

1^st Floor, Kamaraj Road, Red fields, Puliakulam, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶16

3.The District Registrar (Administration), No.1/529, Neriperichal Village, Pulavapatti Post, Tiruppur – 641 602.

¶17

4.The District Revenue Officer, Tirupur District.

¶18

5.Dhandapani

¶19

Page 1

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

6.Muthusamy

7.Ramasamy

8.Shanmugaraj

9.Savitha

Lakshmi (deceased)

10.Kamalathal

11.Chinnasamy

12.Senthil Kumar 13.Lalitha

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

[Cause title accepted vide order of Court dated 09.09.2024 made in C.M.P.No.19192 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.102251 of 2024]

¶32

Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 05.07.2024 in W.P.No.21673 of 2023 on the file of this Court.

¶33

For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel For R1 : Mr.Srinath Sridevan Senior Counsel for Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah For R2 to R4 : Mr.B.Vijay

¶34

Page 2

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

¶37

Additional Government Pleader

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )

¶40

The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 05.07.2024, made in W.P.No.21673 of 2023, allowing

¶41

the writ petition filed by the first respondent for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, dated 07.06.2023, and consequently, restrain the private respondents from interfering with the properties covered under the sale agreements, sale deeds and partition deed dated 23.12.2020 registered vide Doc.Nos.10997/2020, 10998/2020, 11299/2020, 11298/2020, 11300/2020, 11301/2020, 11302/2020 and 11304/2020 registered at Joint Sub-Registrar, Tiruppur District.

¶42

2.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows :

¶43

2.1.The order impugned in the writ petition is passed by th e2nd

¶44

Page 3

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

¶47

respondent herein directing the Joint Sub-Registrar not to accept any document for registration in respect of properties which are the subject matter of O.S.No.821 of 1958.

¶48

2.2.The case of the appellant is that, documents in respect of properties covering extents more than what the vendors in those documents are entitled to, were presented for registration by the private respondents. In other words, even though it is admitted that the vendors had undivided interest in the property, the case of the appellant is that the property covered in those documents which were registered, is in excess of what the private respondents are originally entitled to as per the preliminary decree in O.S.No.821 of 1958. Therefore, on the complaint made by the 5^th respondent along with the appellant and others, the 3^rd respondent/ District Registrar passed an order dated 25.07.2022, in the following lines :

¶49

“ ,e;epiyapy;. jpUg;g{h; khtl;l chpikapay; ePjpkd;wk; O.S.821-1958 ehs; 21/03/1960?,y; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l ePjpkd;w Kjy;epiy jPh;g;g[iuapd; mog;gilapnyna ,U jug;gpdUf;Fk; brhj;Jhpik ghj;jpag;gl;ljhf mwpaKofpwJ/ mtutUf;F chpa g';fpid ghfk; VJk; bra;J bfhs;shky; ,U jug;gpdUk;

¶50

Page 4

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

¶53

jdpj;jdpna bjhlh; Mtz';fis gjpt[ bra;Js;sJ tprhuizapy; bjhpatUfpwJ/ nkYk;. brhj;Jf;fis Kiwahf ghfk; bra;J bfhs;shjjhy;. ,U jug;gpduhYk; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l Mtz';fspd; rl;lg;g{h;t epiyia tprhuizapy; cWjp bra;a ,ayhj epiyapy;. ,t;tHf;fhdJ brhj;jpd; kPjhd chpik Fwpj;J ,U jug;gpdUf;fpilnaahd jhth tHf;fhfnt fUj ntz;oa[s;sJ/ ,e;epiyapy; ,t;tHf;fhdJ gjpt[r;rl;lk; gphpt[ 68(2),d; fPH; jPh;t[ fhzf;Toa tHf;F my;y/ chpa ePjpkd;wj;jpd; K:ynk jPh;t[ fhzf;Toa tHf;fhFk; vd Kot[ bra;J mt;thnw Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/ ”

¶54

2.3.However, an appeal was preferred by the 5^th respondent before the 1^st respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Registration. The 1^st respondent, by order dated 07.06.2023, passed the following order, which is impugned in the present writ petition :

¶55

“ g[fhh; bjhlh;ghd Mtz';fs; midj;Jk; ePjpkd;w jPh;g;gpy; bjhptpj;Js;s C ghf brhj;ij Fwpg;gpl;L gjpt[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; tHf;fpilf;brhj;jpy; ePjpkd;wj;jPh;g;gpd; go C ghfj;jpy; vjph;kDkjhuh;fSf;F vt;tst[ tp!;jPuzk; chpaJ vd;gJ bjspthf ,y;iy/ mnj rkak;

¶56

Page 5

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

¶59

nky;KiwaPLjhuupd; K:jhijaUf;Fk; C ghfk; KGtJk; chpaJ vd;W fUj ,ayhJ/ nkYk; nky;KiwaPLjhuh;fSf;Fk; vt;tst[ brhj;J chpik vd;gJk; jPh;g;gpy; Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy/ ,e;epfH;tpy; C ghf brhj;jpy; ,Ujug;gpdUf;Fk; vt;tst[ tp!;jPuzk; cs;sJ vd;w nfs;tp vGe;J brhj;jpy; chpik gpur;ridia njhw;Wtpf;fpwJ/

¶60

,jw;F KGikahd jPh;t[ chpa ePjpkd;wnk tH';f ,aYk; vd;gjhy; ePjpkd;wj;jpd; K:yk; jPh;g;g[ bgWk;tiu. tHf;fpil brhj;jpy; ePjpkd;w jPh;g;gpy; (O.S.821-1958) Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s C ghf brhj;ijg; bghUj;J nkw;bfhz;L ve;j ghpth;j;jida[k; nkw;bfhs;s ntz;lhk; vd jpUg;g{h; 1 vz; ,iz rhh;gjpthsUf;F mwptpWj;jg;gLfpwJ/ ”

¶61

2.4.It is pertinent to note that, earlier the 5^th respondent-V.Dhandapani and 3 others filed W.P.No.26272 of 2022 for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the District Registrar dated 25.07.2022 and to direct the District Registrar to pass appropriate orders in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 68(2) of Registration Act based on his findings. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 30.09.2022, without going into the merits of the case, by

¶62

Page 6

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

¶65

directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and by directing the Deputy Inspector General of Registration to pass appropriate orders under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, after providing opportunity. It is only pursuant to the directions of this Court, the 2^nd respondent passed the order impugned in the writ petition in W.P.No.21673 of 2023. It is pertinent to mention that the order impugned does not come under the purview of Section 77-A of Registration Act.

¶66

3.This Court has earlier struck down Section 77-A of the Registration

¶67

Act by an elaborate judgment in the case of M.Kathirvel v. Inspector General of Registration and others [W.P.No.10291 of 2022, etc. batch, dated 02.08.2024] holding that the Sub-Registrar or Registrar cannot be given the power to decide the question of title or to cancel the document exercising power under Section 77-A of the Act. The impugned order is in the nature of an order quite contrary to the power given to the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar even under Rule 55 of Rules framed under the Registration Act. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the parties,

¶68

Page 7

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

¶71

if aggrieved, have to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.

¶72

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that the parties are entitled to limited right as per the preliminary decree. Since the documents before the Registrar are quite contrary to the preliminary decree, it is stated by learned Senior Counsel that it is not necessary for the parties to once again approach the Civil Court.

¶73

5.It is not for the Registration Authorities to decide the rights as between co-owners as per the preliminary decree, when there is dispute. If the rights had already been declared in favour of the parties in the suit while passing preliminary decree, the matter can be finally settled, by seeking separate possession by metes and bounds, by the appellant either by filing an application for final decree or by filing a separate suit, if necessary. When an application is filed for final decree, the appellant can raise all the issues. Certainly, the Civil Court will go into the allegations and the

¶74

Page 8

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶76

W.A.No.2958 of 2024

¶77

grievances of the appellant before actual division. With the liberty so

¶78

preserved, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶79

(S.S.S.R., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.) 14.10.2024