Madras High Court
Mrs. Meeral Buhari vs Inspector General Of ... on 26 August, 2021
1 W.P. No.16150 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P. No.16150 of 2019
Mrs. Meeral Buhari ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
North Chennai, Chennai
3. B. Kareemulla Basha,
4. Mrs. Sajitha Parveen,
5. Ayesha Siddika,
6. S. Shajahan ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and
2nd respondents to cancel the sale deed vide Document No.281/2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 W.P. No.16150 of 2021
dated 24.12.2020 executed by 3rd to 5th respondents in favour of the 6th
respondent as claimed in the petitioner's representation dated 13.04.2021
and pass orders accordingly.
For Petitioner :: Mr.K.Mohanamurali
For Respondents 1 & 2 :: Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
(Government Advocate)
*****
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1st
and 2nd respondents to cancel the sale deed vide Document No.281/2020
dated 24.12.2020 executed by 3rd to 5th respondents in favour of the 6th
respondent as claimed in the petitioner's representation dated 13.04.2021
and pass orders accordingly.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
property at No.22 Savari Muthu Street, Mannady, Chennai - 600 001
originally belonged to Rahman Beevi, having purchased the same by
virtue of the Sale Deed in Document No.4269 of 1965 on the file of the
Sub-Registrar Office, Chengalpet. The said Rahman Beevi died on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
18.06.1994. During her life time, she said to have executed a Document
No. 288 of 1994 dated 10.03.1994 in favour of the Jameela Beevi against
Mohamedan Law. The Document No.288 of 1994 was illegally
mentioned as if Rs.15,300/- was paid on 07.07.1994 by Rahman Beevi
who died on 18.06.1994. This was also one of the grounds raised by the
petitioner's husband in C.S.No.49 of 1995. Likewise, she also executed a
Document No.293 of 1994, dated 10.03.1994 in favour of A.R. Farisha
against Mohamedan Law. The late husband of the petitioner by name
Mr. M.B. Buhari filed C.S. No.49 of 1995 before the Hon'ble High Court,
seeking for partition, declaration and for other reliefs for the properties
including the aforesaid property at No.22, Savari Muthu Street,
Mannady, Chennai - 600 001 as per Mohomedan Law and the same is
still pending before this Court. Among other properties, the property at
No.22, Savari Muthu Street, Mannady, Chennai was also pledged with
Syndicate Bank, Kodambakkam, Chennai by R.M. Basha & Co., and in
this regard Syndicate Bank has instituted O.S.No.8024 of 1996 before the
IV Additional Judge, the City Civil Court, Chennai. The said Syndicate
bank also initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, against all the
properties held under Hypothecation with the Bank. The husband of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
petitioner paid the entire Principal and the interest and released the
Hypothecated properties including the properties at No.22, Savari Muthu
Street, Mannady, Chennai 600 001. The husband of the petitioner
executed an instrument with regard to receiving of the Original title deed
documents after repayment of loan to the Syndicate Bank,
Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai. Thereafter, the said A.R. Farisha and
Jameela entered into an understanding dated 22.08.2005. Under the
Memorandum of Understanding, the said Farisha released her 1/4th
shares in the properties including the subject property. While the memo
of compromise was also entered between Jameela and Farisha dated
22.08.2005 who are the sisters of the petitioner's husband wherein it is
clearly admitted that Jameela has only 1/4th share in the aforesaid
property. But, B. Kareemulla Basha S/o. M.A. Buhari (Late), Mrs. Sajitha
Parveen W/o.Raja Mohammed and D/o. M.A. Buhari (Late), Jameela
(Late), and Ayesha (Late) executed document No.281 of 2020 for a
portion of 979 1/2 Sq.Ft in favour of S. Shajahan who is the 6th
respondent herein on the file of SRO, North Chennai, during the
pendency of C.S. No.49 of 1995 on the file of this Court. Further, the
actual extent of the subject property is 1258 Sq.ft. (37 ft X 34 ft).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
However, the Document No.281 of 2020 has been registered for 1959
Sq.ft. without carrying out any inspection on the said premises.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the recent
Judgment in W.P. (MD) No.10177 of 2021 passed on 17.06.2021 as his
reliance wherein it has been held as follows:
"...10. The Registration Act, 1908, provides for a
mechanism to the concerned Authority to deal with a
complaint pertaining to a fraudulent transaction. Once an
Authority exercises such a power and conducts an enquiry
and ultimately, finds that the entire transaction is
fraudulent, such an order passed by the Authority should
get reflected in the records. The Authority on the one hand
cannot state that he will declare a transaction to be
fraudulent and thereafter, he will send the party to a Civil
Court to cancel that document. Declaring a transaction to
be fraudulent one, virtually makes that document void in the
eye of law. Once a document is void in the eye of law it is
non-est and there is no necessity for a party to
unnecessarily spend his time in a Civil Court seeking for
cancellation of such a document. It will be wasteful
exercise without any purpose."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. According to the aforesaid observations made by this Court, the
2nd respondent, after conducting enquiry, has found the transaction to be
a fraudulent one and thereby, the document executed in favour of the 6th
respondent has become non-est in the Eye of law. It is stated that this
order has also become final. Once such orders are passed, there is no
requirement to cancel the document and it is enough if a necessary entry
is made in the Encumbrance Certificate itself reflecting the proceedings
of the concerned Authority declaring the transaction to be a fraudulent
one. Once such an entry is made in the records, it automatically reverses
the earlier registration of the fraudulent document. This procedure
becomes even more important, since the continuation of the early entry
made at the time when the transaction took place and which has been
subsequently declared to be fraudulent, will virtually prevent the real
owner of the property to deal with her property. Therefore, in all such
cases, once an order is passed by the Authority declaring the transaction
to be fraudulent and it has become final, the same has to be recorded in
the relevant register and it must be reflected in the Encumbrance
certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5. It has further been submitted that if fraudulent registration is
proved, apart from directing the Registering Officers to file police
complaints against the fraudsters, specific orders to be passed directing
the Registering Officers for making entry in the relevant index and also
in the copies of the documents. While the entire possession of the subject
property is with the petitioner and her family members, the 6th
respondent being illegal purchaser is attempting to disturb the possession
of the petitioner with the fraudulent document created by the 3rd to 5th
respondents in favour of him. Hence, the petitioner has no other
alternative and efficacious remedy to file the present Writ petition by
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a direction
to the 1st and 2nd respondent to cancel the Sale Deed vide Document
No.281 of 2020 dated 24.12.2020 executed by 3rd to 5th respondent in
favour of the 6th respondent herein.
6. The learned Government Advocate would submit that there is a
communication dated 28.06.2021 in Letter No. 15357/U2/2021 to the
District Registrar (North) from the Head of the Additional Inspector
General of Registration (Stamps & Regn.) directing to take action under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Section 68(2) of Registration Act. Further, while the husband of the
petitioner filed a suit in C.S. No.49 of 1995 before this Court seeking for
partition, declaration and for other reliefs among other properties and
Memo of Compromise was executed among them in the event of
settlement of loan with regard to this subject property, the sale deed dated
24.12.2020 in Document No.281 of 2020 is liable to be questioned.
Hence, this Court may pleased be to direct the 2nd respondent herein to
conduct the enquiry over this matter.
7. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate for the respondents.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned Government
Advocate, as the Additional Inspector General of Registration (Stamps &
Regn.) directs the 2nd respondent herein to take action on the
representation made by the petitioner herein under Section 68(2) of
Registration Act, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent shall
conduct the enquiry over this matter as expeditiously as possible and
take action accordingly. After receiving the report on the enquiry, the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law
by 28.02.2022. The parties concerned are directed to enter appearance
on the date of enquiry scheduled by the 2nd respondent without fail
enabling them to dispose of the said issue as quickly as possible.
9. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ petition stands disposed
of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if any.
There shall be no order as to costs.
26.08.2021
Lbm
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To:
1.Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
North Chennai, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
Lbm
W.P. No.16150 of 2021
26.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
