Dismissed

Raju @ Rajalingam v. The District Registrar

Madras HC12 Aug 2024WP(MD)/15933/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of the District Registrar's order permitting registration of sale deeds over his property during a pending partition suit. The Court held registering authorities lack power to decide title or cancel registered documents, relying on Satya Pal Anand and its earlier decision in G.Rajasulochana, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raju @ Rajalingam Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

Raju @Rajalingam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Palani, Dindigul District. 2.The Sub Registrar, Gujiliamparai, Dindigul District. 3.Mariyayee 4.Jakkammal 5.M.Mariappan 6.M.Raju. 7.M.Vaira Pillai (Deceased) 8.M.Muthusamy @ Muthu Pillai 9.Selvam 10.Ravi 11.Marutha Pillai (Respondents 9 to 11 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased 7^th respondent vide Court order dated 12.08.2024) .... Respondents

¶11

1/10

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶14

PRAYER:

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1544/E1/2022 dated 28.04.2022 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents herein to cancel the created sale deeds in Document Nos.888/2022, 889/2022 and 890/2022 dated 07.04.2022 and 08.04.2022 with regard to the petitioner's property in Survey No.1010/1F to an extent of 67 cents situated at Palayam Village, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddarthan,

¶17

: Mr.M.Siddarthan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1& R2 Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu for R3 to R6

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1544/E1/2022 dated 28.04.2022 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents herein to cancel the created sale deeds in Document Nos.888/2022,

¶20

2/10

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶23

889/2022 and 890/2022 dated 07.04.2022 and 08.04.2022 with regard to the petitioner's property in Survey No.1010/1F to an extent of 67 cents situated at Palayam Village, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶24

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional

¶25

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that originally, the subject property was purchased by the petitioner's father by way of registered sale deed dated 26.12.1957. After the demise of his father, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the respondents 3 and 4, who are the mother and sister of the petitioner, claiming right over the property and filed a suit in O.S.No.246 of 2021, on the file of Sub Court, Vedasandur for partition. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents 3 and 4 are taking steps to sell the property to the respondents 5 to 8. Therefore, the petitioner filed an objection petition and the same was rejected and registered the document through the impugned order by saying that the respondents 3 and 4 were produced patta in

¶27

3/10

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶30

their favour and also directed the petitioner to work out his remedy before the civil Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶31

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Registering Authority has no power to go into all these transactions. In Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power conferred on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the registration of the document already registered. Sections 22-A and 22-B were inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2022 and Act 41 of 2022 respectively to prevent registration of certain category of the documents. Thereafter, Section 77-A has been brought by Act 41 of 2022 to cancel the document registered in contravention of Sections 22-A and 22-B not beyond it. Now Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 also is struck down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10291 of 2022 batch as unconditional. Such being the position, this Court is of the definite view that the title cannot be decided by the Registering Authorities. These facts have been discussed by this Court in W.P.No.29706 of 2022 [G.Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others] and the Order in the writ petition is as follows:

¶32

“... 3. It is relevant to note that the object of the law of registration is to

¶33

4/10

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶36

provide public notice of the transaction embodied therein. The execution of documents and its validity, the right created or extinguished is governed by the substantive law namely the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 relates to the factum of registration alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77 has held as follows:

¶37

“The Act only strikes at the documents and not at the transactions. The whole aim of the Act is to govern documents and not the transactions embodied therein. Thereby only the notice of the public is drawn.”

¶38

4. The practice has been developed in the recent past in Tamil Nadu to entertain the applications given by the so-called affected parties to cancel all the documents under the pretext of either forgery or fradulent transactions. The Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu has brought out Circular No.67 dated 03.11.20211 to deal with the fraudulent registrations through impersonation. The said circular is mainly based on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of YanalaMalleshwari v. AnanthulaSayamma, reported in AIR 2007 AP 57. However, the three bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that the power of the Registrar, under the Registration Act, is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. The same is extracted hereunder:

¶39

“34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan [State of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787] ).

¶40

5/10

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶43

Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference to government maps and surveys. There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered.”

¶44

5. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that and in the absence of any express power to cancel the registered document, the Registrar has no power to cancel the document. Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 relied upon by the Registration Department to substantiate the circular in this regard, when carefully seen. Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows:

¶45

“68. Power of Registration to superintend and control Sub Registrars.

¶46

(1) every Sub Registrar perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of

¶47

6/10

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶50

such Sub Registrar is situate.

¶51

(2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (Whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered.”

¶52

6. The above provision makes it clear that the said section confers power upon the Registrar to supervise and control all the acts of the SubRegistar. Sub-Section 2 empowers the Registrar to issue any order consistent with the Act, which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him. Similarly, the Registrar shall also have power in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered. The above power empowering the Registar to issue any order is a power of superitendence and supervision and not a power vested to cancel the registration of the document. Therefore, relying upon Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and issuing such circular cannot be valid in the eye of law. Unless a specific power and express provision is made in the Act empowering the Registrar to cancel the document, such powers cannot be conferred by the Inspector General of Registration by taking aid of 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.”

¶53

In view of the above settled position of law, unless the power is specifically vested with the registering authority to go into the matter, there cannot be any direction to cancel the documents. All these facts cannot be looked into by the authorities and the same has to be agitated before the civil Court.

¶54

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

¶55

7/10

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶57

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the civil Court.

¶58

12.08.2024

¶59

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsm

¶60

8/10

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.(MD)No.15933 of 2022

¶63

¶64