Ashok Chand Vs the Inspector General of Registration

(R7 brought on record as legal heir of R4 Vide order dated 24.08.2021 made in C.M.P.Nos. 13491 & 13492/21 and WA Nos. 1293 & 1295/2021 by MMSJ & SKJ) .. Respondents In both Writ Appeals

¶28

Prayer in W.A.No. 1293 of 2021: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside impugned order dated 07.02.2020 made in W.P.No. 7827 of 2016.

¶29

Prayer in W.A.No. 1295 of 2021: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside impugned order dated 07.02.2020 made in W.P.No. 7828 of 2016.

¶30

For Appellants : Mr.V.Ragavachari Senior Counsel For M/s. Eswar Kumar and Rao Law Firm (in both appeals) For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate For R1 to R3 Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel For Mr.S.Thangavel, for R5 Mr.Chetan Sagar for R6 Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, Senior Counsel For Mr.M.RoshanAfiq for R7 R4 – Died (in both appeals)

¶31

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶32

2

¶33

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

¶34

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶35

(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶36

The Writ Petitioners are in appeal against the dismissal of the Writ Petitions filed by them by order dated 07.02.2020, wherein they had challenged the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the District Registrar (Admin IC) (in short, R2) seeking a consequential direction to R1 to R3, being the Inspector General of Registration, District Registrar (Admin IC) and Joint Sub-Registrar II to register documents bearing Nos.P127 and P128 of 2013 (in short, sale deeds in question) that had been kept pending registration.

¶37

The parties are referred to by their array in these appeals, which remains the same as in the Writ Petitions. One T.Subramaniam was running two spinning mills in Tiruppur. His wife Nallammal/R4 and son Madhiyazhagan/R5 were initially Directors in the company that was running the spinning mill. His son fell out with the father and stepped out of Directorship on 03.04.2002.

¶38

Suffice it to say that the relationship was not cordial between the father and son. R5 would allege that his father had been alienating properties belonging to the company and engaging in transactions that were contrary to law. The company in which the family members had been Directors, by name M/s.Nallam Maniam Textile (P) Limited (in short, company), had availed financial facilities from Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Coimbatore (in short, Bank).

¶39

3

¶40

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

¶41

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶42

The Directors had offered personal properties as collateral, to secure the

¶43

loans. Since the documents which the appellants seek registration of, relate to the same property in respect of which title deeds were deposited with the DRT, the Schedule becomes a necessary detail, and has been recorded in this order as follows:

¶44

Tamilnadu, Tirupur District, Tirupur Registration District, Tirupur –II Joint Sub Registrar (Previously) Palladam Taluk, Now Tirupur Taluk. All that piece and parcel of immovable property being property S.F.No.459 extent P.A.:2 Acres 55 cents along with common area and facilities attributable thereto which area includes right of Pathway and other Easement Right in 15, Velampalayam village, Electric Service 179-00-49 esiding S.C.No.601, Tariff No:4, Sanction Load 7.5 HP dated 07.03.2003, Two Bore wells.

¶45

Tamilnadu, Tirupur District, Tirupur Registration District, Tirupur –II Joint Sub Registrar (Previously) Palladam Taluk, Now Tirupur Taluk. All that piece and parcel of immovable property situated at 15, Vellampalayam Village, E.B. Colony, Samundipuram S.F.No.461/6 extent P.A.:-0.09 ½ cents along with common areas and facilities attributable thereto which area includes right of Pathway and other Easement Right in 15, Velampalayam village

¶46

East of Rukmani’s Land South of S.F.No. : 459 West of Rukmani’s Land North of Rukmani’s Land

¶47

(in short, property/property in question).

¶48

4

¶49

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

¶50

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶51

There were defaults leading to action being taken by the Bank under the

¶52

provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, Sarfaesi Act) to recover the outstandings. Original Applications were filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the title deeds of the property that had been offered as collateral, had been deposited with the DRT.

¶53

T.Subramaniam passed away on 01.03.2014. Prior to his demise, he appears to have executed sale deeds in favour of the appellants in respect of the schedule properties. When the documents were presented for registration, the authorities of the Registration Department refused registration.

¶54

The Joint Sub-Registrar II passed an order on 18.09.2019 in Refusal Order No.3 of 2015 citing Rule 162A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1983 (in short, Rules) and Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act, 1908 (in short, Act) which provides for an appeal to the appellate authority.

¶55

In the reasons for refusal of registration, R3 states that neither the original title documents nor the order passed by the Civil Court lifting the attachment on the property were produced before him. Being of the view that registration of a deed which is under attachment of the Court was opposed to general law, he refuses registration under Rule 162A of the Rules.

¶56

The appellants availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal before the

¶57

5

¶58

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

¶59

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶60

District Registrar which came to be rejected, affirming order dated 18.09.2015. The appellate order is dated 01.12.2015. Before the Writ Court, the appellants had maintained that the authorities of the Registration Department have exceeded their powers in passing the impugned order.

¶61

The appellants argued that even if there were to be a subsisting mortgage, that was not an impediment for registration of the sale deeds. They had also argued that neither the Registration Act nor Rules endowed the registering authorities to ask for title documents and hence the refusal to register was bad on all counts.

¶62

According to the appellants, a police complaint had been filed stating the title documents had been lost, in response to which Non-traceable Certificate (NTC) had been issued by the police authorities upon due verification. The arguments of the respondents were to the effect that non-production of the original title deeds was not on account of they having been lost but since they had been held in security by the Bank in respect of the loans advanced to the father of R5.

¶63

Since the loan had been declared as a Non-performing Asset (NPA), the same had been assigned to the Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL), that had been impleaded as R6 and continues in that array in these appeals. Hence the documents were being held by DRT as noted in the refusal

¶64

6

¶65

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

¶66

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶67

order itself. By way of defence, the respondents had relied upon a Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration on 25.04.2012.

¶68

The case of the private respondents was that the NTC was obtained by the appellants from the concerned police authorities fraudulently and the SubInspector who had issued the same was under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated qua the concerned officer. R5 had also initiated both civil as well as criminal action, both against R4, his mother, and his father. Incidentally, his father T.Subramaniam had passed away on 01.03.2014.

¶69

The Writ Petitions ultimately came to be dismissed on 07.02.2020, the Writ Court holding that having regard to the facts brought to light in the course of hearing, considering the grant of the relief sought, would be putting a premium on the fraud committed by the appellants. Reliance of the appellants upon the decision in Lakshmi Ammal V. Sub-Registrar, Villivakkam and another¹ was found to be misplaced. It is as against that order that the Writ Petitioners are in appeals.

¶70

Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Eswar Kumar, learned counsel on record for the appellants reiterates the submissions made before the Writ Court. We are taken to some provisions of the Act and the Rules, namely, Section 47 of the Act and Rules 55 and 162A. He would attempt

¶71

12015 SCC Online 5868

¶72

7

¶73

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

¶74

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶75

to divest the legal issue from the surrounding facts, proceeding on the basis that

¶76

the Court should decide the Writ Appeals purely as a legal issue. According to

¶77

him, the impugned order is nothing but an excess of jurisdiction and stands vitiated on this one score.

¶78

He would rely on the following decisions:

¶79

(i) Balkrishnan Gupta and Others v Swadeshi Polytex ltd and another²

¶80

(ii) Opto Circuit India Limited v Axis Bank and Others³

¶81

(iii) Mohinder Singh Gill and another v The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others⁴

¶82

(iv) Om Prakash (Dead) through his legal representatives v Shanti Devi and others⁵

¶83

(v) Gurbax Singh v Kartar Singh and others⁶

¶84

(vi) M.Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration⁷

¶85

(vii) SabapathiPalanisamy and another v The Sub Registrar, Avinashi, Tirupur District and another⁸

¶86

(viii) Premkumar Mishra &Anr v V.KanjiRavaria& Kanji &anr⁹

¶87

(ix) P.Pappu v The Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram, Namakka District¹⁰

¶88

(x) M.Ariyanatchi&Anr v The Inspector General of Registration &Anr¹¹

¶89

(xi) The Sub Registrar v Federal Bank Ltd &Anr¹²

¶90

(xii) Federal Bank v The Sub Registrar and another¹³

¶91

(xiii) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v S.P.Velayutham& Others¹⁴

¶92

(xiv) Narayan DeoraoJavle (Deceased) through legal rep. V Krishna &Anr¹⁵

¶93

2(1985) 2 SCC 167

¶94

3 (2021) 6 SCC 707

¶95

4 (1978) 1 SCC 405

¶96

5 (2015) 4 SCC 601

¶97

6 (2002) 2 SCC 611

¶98

7 (2024) 2 CTC 769

¶99

8 W.P.No. 17901 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020 (MHC) 9(2024) 7 SCC 2295 10W.A.No.1160 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024 (DB MHC) 11WA(MD) No. 856 of 2023 dated 27.06.2023 (DB MHC) 12W.A.No. 1303 of 2023 dated 08.01.2025 (DB MHC) 13W.P.No. 2758 of 2023 14(2022)8 SCC 210 15(2021) 17 SCC 626

¶100

8

¶101

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

¶102

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶103

(xv) Prabakaran and anr v V.M.Azhagiri Pillai (dead) by LRS &ors¹⁶ (xv) K.S.Vijayendran v Inspector General of Registration¹⁷

¶104

(xv) Nachiyappan v Periyakaruppan¹⁸ (xvi) S.Thara Bai v The Inspector General of Registration and another¹⁹ (xvii) K.Subramaniyan v The Sub Registrar²⁰ (xviii) Dr.Abilasha v District Registrar (Admn) &Anr²¹

¶105

According to him, Rule 55 has adversely commented upon in the

¶106

above judgments and hence the action of the registering authorities in insisting on production of the original documents cannot be countenanced. The power of refusal to register is restricted to the situations enumerated under Rule 162A of the Rules. Nowhere therein is it contemplated that the officer can venture into an examination of the original deed or records specified in that document.

¶107

It is only vide G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 05.09.2022 that sub-Rule (xx)

¶108

was brought into Rule 162 providing for such examination and it is that Rule that

¶109

has been adversely commented upon by this Court in the above judgments. Hence, the impugned order suffers from an excess of jurisdiction.

¶110

That apart, nowhere is a second mortgage barred under law and the settled position of law as per the above judgments would also support the position that a sale deed may be executed subject to a subsisting encumbrance, including mortgage. To a pointed question as to whether the sale deeds in question contain any such indication of a subsisting mortgage, the answer is in

¶111

16(2006) 4 SCC 484

¶112

172011 2 LW 648

¶113

18SA(MD) No. 520 of 2017 dated 20.11.2020

¶114

19W.P.No. 5716 of 2022 dated 18.03.2022

¶115

20W.P.No. 18848 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024

¶116

21W.P.No. 7947 of 2018 dated 22.03.2021

¶117

9

¶118

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

¶119

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶120

the negative, evidently for the reason that there is no such disclosure.

¶121

We had also sought a query as to whether any legal action has been taken as against their vendor T.Subramaniam, to which also, the answer is in the negative. As already recorded, the appellants have preferred to, and insisted upon proceeding purely on the legal issue of assumption of jurisdiction by the official respondents, eschewing all factual details surrounding the execution of the sale deeds.

¶122

Stiff resistance is put up by the respondents. The official respondents are represented by Mr.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate and the private respondents are represented by Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Roshan, learned counsel for R7, legal heir of R4 who had passed away on 07.08.2020, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Thangavel, learned counsel for R5 and Mr.Chetan Sagar, learned counsel for R6. R7 was impleaded on 24.08.2021 and is the sister of R5.

¶123

In one voice, R5 and R7 submit that the matter is not as simple as projected by the appellants. T.Subramaniam does appear to have executed the documents in question. However, such execution was under coercion to get over the pressure exerted by the appellants for recovery of money. They draw attention to a money suit filed by the appellants against T.Subramaniam for the outstandings in respect of the cotton supplied allegedly by them to the company.

¶124

10

¶125

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

¶126

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶127

In that suit, though an order of attachment had been initially obtained

¶128

by the appellants, ultimately, the suit had been decreed by way of a compromise. They also draw attention to several documents that, according to them, constitute forged and manipulated documents, as well as a NTC obtained from the police fraudulently.

¶129

According to them, a complaint (complaint I) had been made by T.Subramaniam in respect of the loss of his driving licence and car Registration Certificate. In a move to obtain an NTC at any cost, another complaint (complaint II) had been filed on the same date as complaint I, allegedly by the appellants forging the signature of T.Subramaniam, complaining about the loss of the two documents, that were in reality in the custody of the DRT.

¶130

Complaint I had not been pursued and the Sub-Inspector of Police had been prevailed upon to issue an NTC that related to complaint I making it appear that it related to complaint II. Before the registering authorities, the documents had been annexed with a copy of the forged complaint II and the NTC making it appear as though the original documents had been lost while. In fact, it is admitted that the original documents were in possession of the DRT.

¶131

Other documents purporting to be official Court documents issued by the Civil Court at Raichur have been produced by the Respondents, which, according to them, also establish fraud played by the Appellants. This would,

¶132

11

¶133

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

¶134

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶135

they argue, vitiate all proceedings, and the Writ Court has thus rightly, proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

¶136

For their part, the respondents rely on the provisions of the Act and Rules, being Section 2(5-A) defining ‘forged document’, Section 76 relating to order of refusal by registration, Section 82 imposing penalty for illegal acts, Section 83 for initiation of prosecution, Rule 55 touching upon forgery and manipulation of documents and Rule 162A, touching upon registration of documents opposed to public policy and morality.

¶137

On behalf of the State, learned Government Advocate would defend vehemently the action of the registering authority pointing out that the statutory provisions as well as the Rules relied upon by the respondents would come into play in the present case.

¶138

We have heard all learned counsel and perused the material papers. The affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions proceed on the basis that the appellants are bonafide purchasers of the schedule properties. They state that any sale in their favour will be subject to the mortgage in favour of the Bank.

¶139

The facts presented before the Court at the instance of the Appellants can, at best, be called sketchy. There is no disclosure in respect of various critical factual particulars which were brought to the notice of the Court only by virtue of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, particularly the private

¶140

12

¶141

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

¶142

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶143

respondents.

¶144

We would normally, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prefer to restrain the remit of adjudication to legal issues alone, eschewing disputed factual positions and traversing into the factual domain to the bare minimum necessary, in order to set the context for an appreciation of the legal issues. In doing so, we take cognizance of the position that the law cannot be decided in a vacuum, but would have to be decided having regard to relevant, undisputed materials and surrounding facts and circumstances.

¶145

This case is no exception, and we have, in deciding the matter, taken

¶146

note of the trajectory of the events that have unfolded before us by way of the

¶147

pleadings and documents presented, all of which are admitted by the parties.

¶148

In our understanding, this is how the events have unfolded:

¶149

i. The companies were started in 2000.

¶150

ii. Loans were availed from Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Coimbatore and personal properties of T.Subramaniam, R4 and R5 were mortgaged as collateral security.

¶151

iii. Title deeds of the property in question were deposited with the Bank.

¶152

iv. On 03.04.2002, R5 resigned from Directorship of the companies paving the way for his mother to become a Director.

¶153

13

¶154

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

¶155

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶156

v.

¶157

v. The loan was declared as NPA and notice dated 29.10.2007 was issued by the bank under Section 13(2) of the Sarfaesi Act.

¶158

vi. O.A.Nos.5 and 21 of 2008 were filed by the Bank before the DRT, Coimbatore for recovery of the dues.

¶159

vii. The NPA was assigned to R6 – ARCIL on 14.03.2011.

¶160

viii. Thereafter and on a separate trail, R5 had availed a One Time Settlement (OTS) after the demise of his father with ARCIL and had negotiated a private sale of the schedule properties.

¶161

It is in this context and to a query posed by us, that the appellants have referred to Section 47 of the Act. Section 47 says that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate, if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.

¶162

Thus, according to the appellants, despite this private sale, once the documents in question are registered, they would be valid documents from the time of execution thereof, which is 13.12.2013. This argument is rendered unnecessary in light of the conclusion that we have ultimately arrived at.

¶163

With the private sale negotiated inter se R4, R5, ARCIL and the third party (who is not before us), the curtains fall on the sale of the properties in question and the closure of the loans qua R4 and R5 and the Bank. With this, we

¶164

14

¶165

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

¶166

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶167

move to an entirely different aspect of the matter. According to the appellants,

¶168

T.Subramaniam owed the brother of the second appellant monies for supply of cotton. Hence, the brother of A2 filed O.S.No.207 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, Karnataka for recovery of money. Another Suit was filed by the same person in O.S.No.208 of 2011 before the same Court, also for recovery of money.

¶169

Inter alia, IA II was filed in O.S.No.207 of 2011 seeking an order of Attachment Before Judgment (ABJ) of the personal properties of the Directors. Notice was issued on 14.12.2011 and the matter was listed on 10.01.2012. Likewise, in I.A.No.I in O.S.No.208 of 2011. On 11.01.2012, it appears that the defendants in the Suit, i.e., the company, had not objected for ABJ and hence, both interim applications in O.S.Nos.207 and 208 of 2011 came to be allowed and an order of ABJ was passed.

¶170

On 13.02.2012, the Suits were decreed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order of attachment was forwarded through bailiff and registered before the Dharapuram as well as Vellakoil SubRegistrar offices on 27.07.2012.

¶171

While so, documents are now placed before us by R5, which assume importance in the context of the allegation of fraud. The first document is dated 31.12.2012 and is extracted below:

¶172

15

¶173

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

¶174

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶175

The above document is evidently a summon and several infirmities are

¶176

pointed out therein, such as, there being no discernible signature. The second document, more important in our view, is purported to be a Court document, which is extracted below:

¶177

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT RAICHUR Original Suit No: 208/2011 (in I.A.No:2/2013)

¶178

I.A.No : 1020/2013

¶179

Name of the Decree Holder : M/S.Shree Annapurna Trading Co.,

¶180

Cotton merchants, #12-10-55/1, Siyatalab, Gunj Road, Raichur, a proprietorship concern Through it's Proprietor Sri K.Mahaveer Jain, Bhansali, S/o. Late Khemaraj Jain Bhansali, aged About: 32 years, Oce :Business, R/o.RAichur

¶181

16

¶182

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

¶183

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶184

//VERSUS//

¶185

Name of the Judgement Debtors:

¶186

M/s.Nallam Textiles (P) Ltd, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, represented it's

¶187

a) Shri.T.Subramaniam, S/o.Thirumalai Swamy, aged about 66 years, Managing Director b) Mrs.Nallammal, W/o. T.Subramaniam,m aged about 61 years c) Shri S.Madhiyazhagan, S/o. T.Subramaniam,

¶188

aged about 43 years both Directors & All R/o S.F.No: 406, Earagam patti, Konarpatti (PO), Dharapuram (T.N)

¶189

Intimation to the Sub Register as per High Court's R.O.C.No: 3584/79 F.1 and No: S.R.O.16/07

¶190

To

¶191

The Sub Register,

¶192

It is informed that the properties mentioned below in the schedule have been attached on 10.01.2013 as per the orders passed in the above number dated 10.01.2013.

¶193

Therefore you are required to make necessary entries towards encumbrance in the relevant register.

¶194

Therefore you are required to make necessary entries towards encumbrance in the relevant register.

¶195

Schedule Property

¶196

Property attached on 10.01.2013 Attachment made absolute on 20.06.2013 Attachment raised on 10.12.2013 10.12.2013 in I.A.No:1017/2013 in (O.S.No:207/2011) in I.A.No:1/2013.

¶197

Schedule of items I to VII annexed to this document and not extracted in the interest of brevity

¶198

(S/d)

¶199

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RA.....(not legible)' 41. The list of dates highlighted in bold above assume importance. It states

¶200

therein that the schedule property was attached on 10.01.2013, attachment was

¶201

made absolute on 20.06.2013 and attachment was raised on 10.12.2013. These

¶202

dates are clearly incorrect, as O.S.No.208 of 2011 has been disposed on

¶203

17

¶204

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

¶205

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶206

13.02.2012 itself as per the compromise decree of that date. We extract the

¶207

compromise decree below:-

¶208

“The suit is coming on this the 13^th day of February 2012 for final disposal before Sri P.Srinivasa, B.A.L.,LL.M Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Raichur in the presence of Sri.Basavaraj Sakree, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.Suresh Reddy Advocate for Defendant No.1(a) and Defendant No.1(b-e) are placed exparte. Suit is decreed in terms of compromise petition. The compromise petition shall form part of the decree. No costs.

¶209

Given under my hand and seal of the court, on this the 13^th day of February,2012.

¶210

(Sd/-) (P.Srinivasa) Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Raichur

¶211

The third unusual circumstance is in regard to the complaints

¶212

ostensibly filed by T.Subramaniam before the Police authorities. The complaint containing signature of T.Subramaniam dated 18.12.2013 is extracted below:

¶213

',lk; :bts;snfhtpy; njjp : 18/12/2013

¶214

cah;jpU fhty; Jiw bts;snfhtpy; epiya cjtp Ma;thsh; mth;fSf;F

¶215

fh';fak; jhYf;fh. gr;rhgisak; fpuhkk;. bts;skil. ey;yk; blf;!;ily;!; FoapUf;Fk; jpUkiyrhkp ft[z;lh; kfd; T.Rg;gpukzpak; Mfpa ehd; bra;J bfhs;Sk; gpuhJ Iah.

¶216

ehd; vdJ fk;bgdp rk;ke;jg;gl;l ,d;!;a{ud;!; g[j;jf';fSk;. fhh; iyrd;!; g[j;jfKk;. VdJ iybrd;!%k; cs;s g[j;jfKk; tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;a ,uz;L Set Xerox vLj;Jtu ehd; bts;snfhtpYf;F fhhpy; te;J b$uhf;!; mYtyfj;jpy; efy; vLj;Jtpl;L btspapy; epd;W bfhz;oUe;njd;/ ic& rkaj;jpy; ,uz;Lk; Xerox mYtyfj;jpy;

¶217

18

¶218

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

¶219

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶220

Xerox vLj;jnghJ ifjtWjyhf fhzhky; ngha; tpl;lJ/ mYtyfk; kw;Wk; fhhpy; njoa[k; fpilf;ftpy;iy/ mJ vdf;F mtrpakhdJ vd;gjhy; mjid rK:fk; fz;Lgpoj;J jf;f eltof;if vLf;FkhWk; rhd;W tH';FkhWk; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ xg;gk;-?

¶221

Mtz';fs; :

¶222

1/ TN 42 6318 rk;ke;jg;gl;l United India Insurance mry; 2/ D.L. Mry; vd; nghpy; cs;sJ/

¶223

On the same day, there is yet another complaint, as per which the

¶224

originals of the documents in question have been lost. The said complaint is extracted below:

¶225

',lk; :bts;snfhtpy; njjp : 18/12/2013

¶226

cah;jpU fhty; Jiw bts;snfhtpy; epiya cjtp Ma;thsh; mth;fSf;F

¶227

fh';fak; (Tk) gr;rhgisak; fpuhkk;. f!;gh bts;skil ey;yk; blf;!;ily;!; FoapUf;Fk; jpUkiyrhkp ft[z;lh; kfd; T.Rg;gpukzpak; Mfpa ehd; bra;J bfhs;Sk; gpuhJ/ Iah.

¶228

ehd; vdJ fpiua gj;jpu';fshd Document No.5067/1990 kw;Wk; Document NO.2194/1985 kw;Wk; vdJ fk;bgdp rk;ke;jg;gl;l ,uz;L igy;fSk; ,uz;L ,d;!;a{ud;!; g[j;jf';fSk; vdJ tHf;fwp"Uf;F tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;a mry; gj;jpuk; kw;Wk; ,uz;L Set Xerox vLj;Jtu ehd; bts;snfhtpYf;F fhhpy; te;J Xerox mYtyfj;jpy; efy; vLj;Jtpl;L btspapy; epd;W bfhz;oUe;njd;/ ic& rkaj;jpy; vdJ gj;jpu';fs; ,uz;Lk; xerox mYtyfj;jpy; xerox vLj;jnghJ ifjtWjyhf fhzhky; ngha;tpl;lJ/ mYtyfk; kw;Wk; fhhpy; njoa[k; fpilf;ftpy;iy/ mJ vdJ tHf;Ff;F mtrpakhdJ vd;gjhy; mjid rK:fk; fz;Lgpof;f jf;f eltof;if vLf;f ntz;Lkha; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/

¶229

,g;gof;F xg;gk;-?

¶230

19

¶231

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

¶232

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶233

Mtz';fs; :

¶234

1/ 5067/1990 vz; fpiuag;gj;jpuk; 2/ 2194/1985 vz; fpiuag;gj;jpuk;/

¶235

The signatures, allegedly of T.Subramaniam, on both complaints dated

¶236

18.12.2004 are extracted below to illustrate the differences therein:

¶237

Even to the naked eye, the signatures are palpably different. The

¶238

signature in complaint II appears to be in Tamil. It is inconclusive as to who has filed these complaints and perhaps only T.Subramaniam and the appellants could

¶239

provide the answer to that question. The former is no more and no explanation is forthcoming from the appellants on this score.

¶240

20

¶241

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

¶242

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶243

Moving forward, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellakoil Police Station

¶244

ostensibly issued a certificate on 20.12.2013, wherein he refers to the complaint filed by T.Subramaniam. There is also no mention in the NTC about what properties have been certified to be non-traceable and the certificate is blissfully vague. We are, hence, none the wiser as to whether the NTC refers to the licence and RC Book, or the documents. In the interests of completion, we extract the NTC below:

¶245

bts;snfhtpy;

¶246

20/12/2013 fhtyJiw rhd; W; fh';fak; jhY}f;fh. gr;rhghisak; fpuhkk;. bts;skilapy; ,Uf;Fk; jpUkiyrhkp ft[z;lh; kfd; T. Rg;gpukzpak; bfhLj;j g[fhh; kDtpd; mog;gilapy; fhzhky; nghd Mtz';fs; Fwpj;J gy ,l';fspy; njog;ghh;j;Jk; bts;snfhtpy; fhty; epiya rufj;jpy; njog;ghh;j;Jk; Mtz';fs; fpilf;ftpy;iy/ nkw;go Mtz';fs; njog;ghh;j;J fpilf;ftpy;iy vd;gjw;F Not Traceable vd rhd;W tH';fg;gLfpwJ/

¶247

Now for the clincher. When the documents were presented for

¶248

registration, they are accompanied by a copy of complaint II and the NTC, making it look as though the documents were lost when they are actually with the DRT. Whether it is T.Subramaniam or the appellants who can take credit for this

¶249

21

¶250

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

¶251

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶252

master plan is unclear, but the appellants, prima facie, are certainly in collusion, at the very least.

¶253

The very fact that the writ affidavits are bereft of essential details and even before us the attempt is only to skirt the details and redirect the Court to the legal position, reinforces our impression that all is certainly not well in the manner by which the Appellants have proceeded with the litigation.

¶254

Compilation dated 16.10.2023 filed by R5 contains 36 documents, all of which have been supplied to the appellants. There has not been a whisper about these allegations and documents either in the initial presentation of the Writ Appeals or in reply by learned counsel. In all fairness, there should have been some explanation on the part of the Appellants in regard to these documents and the lack thereof is, in our view, a very serious lapse on their part.

¶255

The Writ Court is absolutely right in the conclusion that it has arrived at and rather generous in having dismissing the writ petitions simpliciter. This has perhaps emboldened the Appellant to file the present appeals.

¶256

A private complaint had been lodged by R5 which had not been registered by the authorities. Hence, Crl.O.P.No.9542 of 2015 had been filed by him seeking registration of his complaint. That Crl.O.P. was closed permitting R5 to lodge a written complaint narrating the facts to the Superintendent of Police, CBCID within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of a copy of

¶257

22

¶258

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

¶259

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶260

that order.

¶261

A direction was issued to the Superintendent, CBCID to allot the same to a competent investigating officer to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action. That direction was given in view of the serious nature of allegations made in the complaint touching upon manipulation and fabrication of documents.

¶262

We are given to understand from the respondents that a final report has been filed by the Inspector of Police, CBCID in Cr.No.3 of 2015 and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.679 of 2023 which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur. Those proceedings will continue uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶263

Even in law, we even find the case of the appellants entirely misconceived. At the risk of repetition, we reiterate that the provisions of law and Rules cannot be interpreted in a vacuum and they would have to be understood in the context of the surrounding facts and circumstances. The emphasis of the appellants has been on Rule 55A and the decisions rendered by this Court commenting adversely thereupon. In fact, pending these writ appeals, that Rule has been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court in Gopi V . The Sub Registrar & Ors.²²

¶264

In the present case, the applicable Rules are 55 and 162A that would,

¶265

22 Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025

¶266

23

¶267

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

¶268

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶269

in our considered view, buttress the case of the respondents in full. Both Rules

¶270

are extracted below:

¶271

Rule 55 . It forms no part of a registering officer’s duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:-

¶272

(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him

¶273

are not the persons they profess to be;

¶274

(b) that the document is forged;

¶275

(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has not right to appear in that capacity;

¶276

(d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration; or

¶277

(e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic.

¶278

Rule 162-A . No Registration Officer shall accept for registration any document or service agreement evidencing bonded labour or transaction constituting an offence under any law or opposed to public policy or morality.

¶279

Rule 55 states that no registering officer would enquire into a validity

¶280

of the document brought to him for registration or attend to any protest against

¶281

the registration of such document, except in the situations adumbrated under

¶282

clauses (a) to (e) above. It is the condition in Clause (b) that applies in the present case, that the documents in question are forged.

¶283

Prima facie, the document purporting to be a Court summons, where

¶284

24

¶285

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

¶286

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶287

the date of attachment, attachment being made absolute and lifting of attachment are set out erroneously, and complaint II allegedly signed by T.Subramaniam dated 18.12.2013 appear to be forged and fabricated. The former contain dates which are incorrect on the basis of the Court records that have been produced before us, and the latter contains discrepancies in signatures, even to a casual observer. The latter document has been filed as an annexure to the documents in question when presented for registration.

¶288

The registering authority was in receipt of a copy of the legal notice issued by the counsel for R5 to ARCIL intimating them of the frantic efforts being taken by T.Subramaniam in cohort with the appellants to register the properties in question. It is on receipt of a copy of the legal notice marked to him that the registering authority has caused enquiry. He has written to the police authorities seeking a validation of NTC and the authorities have replied that no such NTC was issued by the Sub-Inspector.

¶289

They have specifically averred that their registers did not contain any such complaint relating to loss of documents in question. It was only pursuant to that, that the concerned police officer has been suspended. The registering authority has, in our view, rightly invoked the provisions of Rule 162A which casts a responsibility upon the authority to desist from registering documents that are contrary to public policy.

¶290

25

¶291

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

¶292

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶293

It is true that the power under Rule 55 and 162A are to be exercised in

¶294

a judicious fashion and within the four corners of the situations adumbrated under Rule 55. R5 had approached the Public Information Officer in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Tirupur seeking the reason why the documents were kept pending and the reply is that they have been kept pending for ascertaining the genuineness of the police certificate submitted by the concerned parties in respect of the documents.

¶295

In fact, on receipt of information from R5 in regard to the cloud over the documents, the Sub-Registrar has made enquiries with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellakoil Police Station and has received communication dated 30.01.2014 to the effect that there are no entries in the register in regard to any complaint having been filed by T.Subramaniam to the Police Department as though the documents in question had been lost and seeking the issuance of a non-traceable certificate. It is based on the enquiry caused in the Police Station thereafter that the concerned police officer was also suspended.

¶296

If the above position does not constitute a breach of public policy, we wonder what would. Hence, we have no hesitation in stating that this is an appropriate case where power under Rule 55 read with Rule 162A has been exercised, and appropriately so.

¶297

In this view that we have now taken, it becomes unnecessary to advert

¶298

26

¶299

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

¶300

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶301

to the cases cited by the Appellants and other submissions as we are of the

¶302

categoric view that the appellants have come to Court with unclean hands, perpetrating such opacity and non-disclosure right from the stage of Writ Petitions. It is a gross over simplification in the present circumstances for the appellants to have projected the matter as though only a legal issue engages the attention of the Court. In our opinion, this is nothing but an attempt to divert from the documents on record, to which our attention has been drawn by the other parties.

¶303

In fine, we unequivocally confirm the order of the Writ Court, additionally putting the appellants to terms of Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of four (4) weeks from date of uploading of this order in the official website of this Court.

¶304

These Writ Appeals are dismissed with costs.

¶305

Sl Index:Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes

¶306

[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J] 16.04.2025

¶307

27

¶308

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

¶309

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶310

To

¶311

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶312

2.The District Registrar, Tirupur Registration District, Tirupur District.

¶313

3.Office of Tirupur – II Joint Sub Registrar, Tirupur Registration District, Tirupur District.

¶314

28

¶315

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

¶316

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶317

DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.

¶318

sl

¶319

W.A.Nos. 1293 & 1295 of 2021

¶320

16.04.2025

¶321

29

¶322

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

¶323

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶324

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021 and CMP Nos.11923 and 11921 of 2022

¶325

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶326

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J.) This matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the

¶327

instance of the appellants.

¶328

Mr.Mukund Rao, learned counsel for the appellants points out three typographical errors in paragraphs 22, 23 and 35 of order dated 16.04.2025. Mr.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate for R1 to R3, Mr.Thangavel, learned counsel for R5,Mr.Chethan Sagar, learned counsel for R6

¶329

and Mr.M.Roshan Afiq, learned counsel for R7 accede to this position.

¶330

Hence, paragraphs 22, 23 and 35 shall now read as follows:

¶331

22. In one voice, R5 and R7 submit that the matter is not as simple as projected by the appellants. T.Subramaniam does appear to have executed the documents in question. However, such execution was under coercion to get over the pressure exerted by the appellants for recovery of money. They draw attention to a money suit filed by the brother of A2 against T.Subramaniam for the outstandings in respect of the cotton supplied allegedly by them to the company.

¶332

23. In that suit, though an order of attachment had been initially obtained by the brother of A2, ultimately, the suit had been decreed by way of a compromise. They also draw attention to

¶333

30

¶334

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

¶335

W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021

¶336

several documents that, according to them, constitute forged and manipulated documents, as well as a NTC obtained from the police fraudulently.

¶337

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶338

35. Thus, according to the appellants, despite this private sale, once the documents in question are registered, they would be valid documents from the time of execution thereof, which is 23.12.2013. This argument is rendered unnecessary in light of the conclusion that we have ultimately arrived at.

¶339