Madras High Court
S.J.Srinivasan vs Inspector General Of ... on 23 February, 2021
W.A.No.4 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.4 of 2020
S.J.Srinivasan ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Inspector General of Registration - Tamil Nadu
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar - North Chennai (Admn.)
I Floor, Kuralagam
Esplanade Road, Chennai 600 104.
3. The Sub Registrar - Ponneri
9/5, Taluk Office Road
Ponneri 601 204.
4. S.R.Subramaniayam
5. M.Nirmala
6. S.U.Nallinipriya
7. R.Kousalya
8. R.Sivaramakrishnan ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4 of 2020
order dated 30.09.2018 made in W.P.No.13561 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.S.J.Srinivasan
Party-in-Person
For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Spl. Govt. Pleader
for respondent-1
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
State Govt. Pleader
for respondents 2 & 3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)
The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. By order dated
November 26, 2018, the North Chennai District Registrar concluded
that there is a title dispute between the appellant herein and
Thiru.S.R.Subramaniyam. On that basis, the appellant was directed to
approach a civil Court in order to resolve such title dispute. The said
order also provided for an appeal before the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration - Chennai Zone. This order was challenged in
W.P.No.13561 of 2019. The Writ Court concluded that no interference
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4 of 2020
is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution because the writ
petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal
before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration.
2. The appellant, who appears in person, contends that the
Registration Department is entitled to exercise jurisdiction whenever
a fraudulent registration is effected in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of
the Registration Act, 1908 (the Registration Act). In principle, there is
no quarrel with this proposition. However, in order to succeed, the
appellant would have to establish that the registration in question
were fraudulent. In the case at hand, the North Chennai District
Registrar examined the evidence that was adduced before her,
including the documents that were relied upon by each of the rival
claimants to the property in question to establish their claims to title.
The District Registrar also took into consideration the fact that a
patta had been issued in the name of Thiru.S.R.Subramaniyam with
regard to the lands in question. On that basis, it was concluded that
there is a civil dispute as to title and that it should be decided by an
appropriate civil Court.
3. The scope of Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 is
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4 of 2020
limited to examining whether false documents were created or
whether false statements were made. By no stretch of imagination,
does this jurisdiction extend to resolving title disputes between
parties. It is evident from the order of the District Registrar that
relevant considerations have been taken into account and there is a
reasonable basis to conclude on the basis of materials presented
before her that a title dispute exists between the appellant herein and
Thiru.S.R.Subramaniyam. Consequently, the conclusion of the District
Registrar that such title dispute should be resolved before the
competent Civil Court cannot be faulted.
4. In addition, it is clear from the order of the District Registrar
that a statutory appellate remedy is provided for, in case the
appellant wants to challenge the order on the ground that he has a
case under Section 82 of the Registration Act.
5. In the facts and circumstances set out above, in our view,
the Writ Court was fully justified in refusing to interfere with the
order impugned therein.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4 of 2020
6. Accordingly, we find that the order of the Writ Court does not
call for any interference. Consequently, W.A.No.4 of 2020 is
dismissed. Such dismissal is without prejudice to the right of the
appellant herein to raise a title dispute before the competent civil
court or to challenge the order of the District Registrar before the
appropriate appellate authority in a manner known to law. However,
there will be no order as to costs.
7. It is open to the appellant herein to make a claim for the
exclusion of the time taken in prosecuting the proceedings before the
registration authorities and before this Court, if proceedings are
instituted before the appropriate civil court. In such event, it will be
up to the appropriate civil court to determine whether the appellant is
entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
23.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
kpl
To
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4 of 2020
1. Inspector General of Registration - Tamil Nadu
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar - North Chennai (Admn.)
I Floor, Kuralagam
Esplanade Road, Chennai 600 104.
3. The Sub Registrar - Ponneri
9/5, Taluk Office Road
Ponneri 601 204.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.4 of 2020
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(kpl)
W.A.No.4 of 2020
23.02.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
