W.P.No.23835 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.23835 of 2022
P. Muthukumaran ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Registrar
District Registrar Office
Collectorate
Villupuram-605 602.
2. The Sub Registrar
Registration Office
Manalurpettai
Thirukovilur Taluk
Kallakurichi District-605 754.
3. P. Seetharaman
4. R. Vanangamudi ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the second respondent's impugned Refusal Check Slip in
Refusal Number: RFL/Manalurpettai/38/2022, dated 22.07.2022 in respect
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23835 of 2022
of the petitioner's property comprised in Survey No.243 measuring a total
extent of 2 acres 40 cents vide Joint Patta No.1306, situated at Edaiyur
Village, Aruthangudi Post, Thirukovilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District,
within the Registration District of Villupuram, Sub Registration District of
Manalurpettai and quash the same and consequential direction to the
second respondent to forthwith register the sale deed dated 21.07.2022
presented by the petitioner, without insisting for the production of the
original parent document.
For petitioner : Mr.J. Agni Selvaraju
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent in RFL/Manalurpettai/38/2022, dated 22.07.2022 in respect of the petitioner's property comprised in Survey No.243 measuring a total extent of 2 acres 40 cents vide Joint Patta No.1306, situated at Edaiyur Village, Aruthangudi Post, Thirukovilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District, within the Registration District of Villupuram, Sub Registration 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022 District of Manalurpettai, quash the same and for consequential direction to the second respondent to register the sale deed, dated 21.07.2022 without insisting for the production of the original parent document.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the properties comprised in S.Nos.235, 240, 243, 244/1, 244/2, 244/3 and 250/1 measuring a total extent of 7 acres 42-1/2 cents vide Joint Patta No.1306, situated at Edaiyur Village, Aruthangudi Post, Thirukovilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District, within the Registration District of Villupuram, Sub Registration District of Manalurpettai belonged to the petitioner's grandfather. On 13.12.2004, his grandfather executed a registered settlement deed in Doc.No.1552/2004 on the file of the second respondent/Sub Registrar in favour of the petitioner and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's father, during his life time, obtained loan amount of Rs.70/- lakhs from several persons. Subsequently, the petitioner sold 0.5.50 acres of properties to someone for repaying the aforesaid loan amount. Taking advantage of the same, the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's elder brother herein, colluded with the 4th respondent were jointly prepared a forged 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022 promissory note with huge amount Rs.10/- lakhs and consequently, the 4th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.93 of 2021 before the Additional District Court, Villupuram, for recovery of money and the same is pending. On 22.07.2022, the petitioner executed a sale deed in respect of S.No.243 measuring the extent of 2.40 cents to and in favour of one Mr.Venkatesan and the same was presented for registration before the second respondent/Sub Registrar, but the second respondent has refused to register the said sale deed in RFL/Manalurpettai/38/2022, dated 22.07.2022. Challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the meanwhile, the third respondent, the elder brother of the petitioner herein, filed a suit in O.S.No. 93 of 2021 before the Additional District Court, Villupuram, against the petitioner herein, for recovery of money and the same is pending for further adjudication. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit proceedings. Hence, he prays to register the same. 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has refused to register the sale deed on the ground of pendency of suit in respect of the subject properties and non-enclosure of original parent document along with the sale deed. The reasons stated by the second respondent cannot be a ground for refusing registration. Further, mere pendency of the suit, in the absence of interim order restraining the alienation of the subject properties cannot be an embargo for registration of the sale deed. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner annexed the certified copy of the parent document, but, the second respondent refused to register the document, which is not sustainable. Hence, the Refusal Check Slip impugned in this Writ Petition is liable to be quashed and he prayed to allow this Writ Petition.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1&2 herein submits that the said refusal check slip was issued by the second respondent on the following grounds:
(i) A suit for partition in respect of the subject property of the Writ Petition is pending before the competent Civil Court. 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022
(ii) The original parent document was not annexed along with the sale deed which was presented for registration before the second respondent.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that it is not in dispute that a suit is pending in respect of the subject property. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he has produced the certified copy of the parent document, as per the rules, it is duty of the second respondent to verify the authenticity of the document. Therefore, production of original parent document is mandatory in the present case. In such circumstances, the Refusal Check Slip issued by the second Respondent/The Sub Registrar cannot be found fault with and hence, the order impugned in this Writ petition needs no interference by this Court and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel on the either side and perused the materials available on record. 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022
8. The issue involved in the present case, is no more res integra as similar issues were considered by this Court in Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam Vs Inspector General of Registration, reported in 2021 (1) CTC 535 and by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated 11.02.2021.
9. The relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated 11.02.2021 is extracted hereunder:-
"8.This Court is entirely in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. The latest decision of the learned Single Judge appears to have not considered the implication of the Circular with reference to the scheme of the relevant Act. On the other hand, the above three decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner would certainly hold the field and in which event, insistence on production of original Title Deeds by the Registering Authority is without any authority of law.
The Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in this regard cannot have any sanctity, unless the power of issuance of such Circular is authorized under the provisions of the Act. This Court has consistently held that no such power can be read into Act, in the absence of any specific provisions and in that view of the matter, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the subject issue is no more res-integra. As far as the latest 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022 decision of the learned Single Judge is concerned, being a kind of a contra view, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16768 of 2020, dated 26.11.2020 has not appreciated the provisions of the Act, as the reasons of the learned Single Judge are contrary to the well considered earlier Judgments of this Court. The learned Judge has reasoned without any specific reference to the scheme of the Act, which governs the registration."
11. In Vadamugam's case [supra], this Court has held as follows:
“10. The 5th Respondent has approached the Civil Court and he has filed O.S.No.48 of 2019, seeking for the relief of Partition and separate possession of 1/27th share in the Suit properties. It is also seen that the 5th Respondent has filed yet another Suit in O.S.No.58 of 2017 in which she has claimed for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants not to alienate the Suit properties. In both the Suits, there is no Order passed by the Competent Civil Court injuncting from dealing with the Suit properties. What the 5th Respondent was not able to achieve before the Civil Court is now sought to be achieved through the 3rd Respondent by virtue of a Letter given before this Court, dated 21.2.2020. The 3rd Respondent is a Statutory Authority, who has to strictly perform his function in accordance with law. This Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can never prevent a Statutory Authority from performing his function.
Therefore, unless and otherwise a Competent Civil Court passes any Interim Order restraining the alienation of the property, the 3rd Respondent has to 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022 entertain the documents and register the same, if it is otherwise in order. Ultimately, even if the suit is decreed, the transaction will be subject to the Rule of lis pendens. There is no law in force which says that no transaction can take place during the pendency of the Suit. That is exactly why Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, provides a solution for transactions that take place during the pendency of the Suit.
11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Letter of the 3rd Respondent, dated 21.02.2020 is hereby quashed and the 3rd Respondent is directed to entertain the documents submitted for registration and register the same, if it is otherwise in order. It goes without saying that the necessary Stamp Duty and Registration Fee will be paid at the time of submitting the document for registration.”
12. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
10. In view of the decisions [supra] and on going through the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, which are similar in nature, this Court is of the view that a copy of the parent document is sufficient to entertain the document for registration. Further, in the absence of any interim order restraining the alienation of the subject property, the refusal to register the sale deed is also unsustainable.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, the 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022 impugned order dated 22.07.2022 is set aside and if no restraint order is passed, the second respondent/Registrar is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner by verifying the certified copy of the parent document and encumbrance certificate without insisting for original parent document and the petitioner is directed to pay necessary stamp duty and registration charges. No Costs.
06.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order msm To
1. The District Registrar District Registrar Office Collectorate Villupuram-605 602.
2. The Sub Registrar Registration Office Manalurpettai Thirukovilur Taluk Kallakurichi District-605 754.
1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23835 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
msm W.P.No.23835 of 2022 06.09.2022 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis