Vijaya vs The Directed General Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4794 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4794 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2021

Madras High Court

Vijaya vs The Directed General Of ... on 24 February, 2021

                                                                                       W.P.No.1850 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 24.02.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                                      W.P.No.1850 of 2021

                     Vijaya                                                      ...      Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                     1.The Directed General of Registration,
                     Sathome, Chennai -4.

                     2The Sub-Registrar,
                     Tharamangalam,
                     Salem District.                                       ... Respondents
                          Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to
                     issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd
                     respondent             proceedings             dated     18.12.2020               in
                     No.RFL/Taramangalam/54/2020 quash the same consequently direct the 2nd
                     respondent to accept the petitioner's documents to sell his property bearing
                     S.No.144/1, Tholasampatty, T.Maramangalam Village, Omalur Taluk,
                     Salem District.
                                     For Petitioner            : Mr.S.N.Subramani

                                     For Respondents           : Mr.T.M.Pappiah
                                                                 Special Government Pleader


                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   W.P.No.1850 of 2021

                                                             ORDER

Challenging the proceedings dated 18.12.2020 in

No.RFL/Taramangalam/54/2020 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd

respondent to accept the petitioner's documents to sell his property bearing

S.No.144/1, Tholasampatty, T.Maramangalam Village, Omalur Taluk,

Salem District, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Sub-Registrar,

Tharamangalam, is refusing to register the sale deed dated 18.12.2020

merely because there was an earlier agreement of sale dated 20.10.2003 and

23.11.2004.

3. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court

paragraph nos.39 and 40 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court

in N.Ramayee Vs. Sub-Registrar, Salem District and Another1, which

reads as under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1850 of 2021

“39. We are of the view that except as provided in the Registration Act and any other statute, the Registrar has no power to refuse to register a document. Though the object o the Act is to prevent fraud, such occasion arises only where some private properties are notified under the Tamil Nadu Private Forest Act. In such case, sale of such property without permission of the Collector of the District is void. Only when such notification is available in respect of any property, the Registrar can verify whether the sanction of the Collector is obtained or not. Similarly, whenever properties have been declared as forest land or elephant corridor, etc., and the notification is available with Registrar, based on the above notification he can exercise power. Except the above, the Registrar has no power to refuse to register the document.

40. As already indicated, the purpose of registration is only to give a public notice. It is for the buyer or subsequent transferee to make reasonable enquiry. Doctrine of caveat emptor will also apply to every transfer. It is for them to verify

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1850 of 2021

the title of the property by making reasonable enquiry. At any event, subsequent transfer will always be subject to the rights already created. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because agreement for sale is registered without obtaining decree of declaration that such agreement is void, subsequent transfer is prohibited and cannot be registered. We hold that as discussed in our judgement, Registrar has no right to refuse to register the subsequent document on the basis that agreement of sale was already registered in respect of same property. Accordingly, the reference is answered. Post the writ petition in W.P.No.674 of 2020 before the learned Single Judge for disposal.”

4. Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader

submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court binds the

Sub-Registrar concerned. The Sub-registrar is now required to act consistent

with the Division Bench authority in Ramayee supra and take fresh call and

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1850 of 2021

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

24.02.2021

Index:yes nsd

1.The Directed General of Registration, Sathome, Chennai -4.

2The Sub-Registrar, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.