Madras High Court
P.Vijayakumar vs A.Antony Joseph on 5 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5448 & 5449 of 2021
P.Vijayakumar ...Appellant
Vs.
1.A.Antony Joseph
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli.
3.P.Rathi Pushpam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.10377 of 2021
dated 21.06.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court and allow this Writ
Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.H.Arumugam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Govt.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.K.Udhayakumar
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
Heard Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan, learned Counsel appearing
for the appellant, Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Counsel appearing for
the first respondent, Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel
for Government appearing for the second respondent and
Mr.K.K.Udhayakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the third
respondent.
2.This appeal by the third respondent in the writ petition is
directed against the order dated 21.06.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.10377
of 2021.
3.The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein,
praying for a direction upon the second respondent Sub-Registrar,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli, to release the original sale deed registered
before him in pending Document No.4 of 2021 dated 10.06.2021,
within a time frame.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
4.The learned Writ Court has disposed of the writ petition
without notice to the appellant and without hearing the appellant.
It appears that the writ petition was disposed of at the admission
stage itself.
5.Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent / writ
petitioner submitted that the Court has not issued any positive
direction, but it has directed that the Sub-Registrar shall take into
consideration the findings of the Court in the writ petition and shall
register the sale deed dated 10.06.2021, if it is otherwise in order
and the necessary stamp duty and the registration charges have
been paid.
6.On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the
learned Writ Court was convinced with the case of the first
respondent / writ petitioner by taking note of the decision of the
Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of N.Ramayee Vs. Sub
Registration Department, Valapady, Salem reported in 2020 5
LW 385. After taking note of the said decision, in paragraph No.5,
the learned Writ Court holds that the enquiry which is proposed to
be conducted by the Sub-Registrar itself would be a fait accompli.
After making such observation, direction has been issued.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
Therefore, we find that the direction issued is not an innocuous
direction, but directing him to proceed in the manner as stated /
observed in the impugned order, in our considered view, could not
have been done without notice to the appellant and without hearing
the appellant.
7.The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent /
writ petitioner would submit that the decision of the Hon'ble
Division Bench in N.Ramayee case [referred supra] is binding on
the Sub-Registrar. No doubt, decisions of Court are binding on the
authorities who are functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of
the High Court. Nevertheless, the party to the proceedings can
always take a stand that the decision is distinguishable on facts or
cannot be applied to his case. Therefore, when the Sub-Registrar
who functions under the provisions of the Registration Act and the
Rules framed thereunder, is entitled to conduct an enquiry after
objection is given on registration of a document, he should be
permitted to act according to the power, unless such power
exercised is wholly without jurisdiction or tainted with malafide or
outcome of arbitrariness. Nothing as stated is alleged except to
state that civil proceedings are pending and the Sub-Registrar is
not justified in retaining the document after signing the document.
The learned Counsel for the first respondent / writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
submitted that the document has already been accepted for
registration and has been assigned document No.1692 of 2021 and
not released.
8.In the light of the above, we are inclined to interfere with
the order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal
is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the matter is
remitted to the Sub-Registrar to conduct an enquiry on the
objection filed by the appellant dated 12.06.2021, after issuing
notice to the appellant, the first and third respondents and the legal
heirs of one Thomas, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to
the aforementioned persons or their authorised representatives.
After taking note of the objections and the submissions that may be
made during the enquiry and the documents that may be produced
by either side, the Sub-Registrar shall pass a speaking order on
merits and in accordance with law. This direction be complied with
within a period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. It is needless to state that the authorities shall
extend cooperation and the appellant should also respond to the
notice issued by the Sub-Registrar and promptly and effectively
participate in the enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
9.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
05.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM., J.
and
S.ANANTHI., J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1303 of 2021
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
