Madras High Court
D.Sivakumar vs The Joint Sub-Registrar No on 15 July, 2021
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
D.Sivakumar,
S/o. S.R.Dakshinamoorthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1 -
(District Registrar),
Registration Department,
Collectorate,
Coimbatore-641 018.
2. Dhavamani,
S/o. Kannusamy ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the
records relating to the order dated 27.02.2019 – on the file of the first
respondent herein – made in respect of the sale agreement dated 27.02.2019
submitted by the petitioner herein – quash the same and consequently direct
the first respondent herein to register the sale agreement dated 27.02.2019
submitted by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan for
M/s.Kingsly Solomon J.
For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Government Advocate for R1
Mr.C.Prakasam for R2
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1 st
respondent Joint Sub-Registrar refusing to register sale agreement on the
ground that already in respect of same property, another sale agreement has
been registered.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of Writ Petition is as follows :-
The petitioner is the owner of property in in T.S.No.145/6, situate at
Door No.509, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Srinivasapuram Extension, Coimbatore.
Earlier, he has entered into a sale agreement with the 2 nd respondent herein
on 23.01.2017 and the same was also registered by the 1st respondent Joint
Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, once again, the petitioner has entered into another
sale agreement with one Thirugnanam, on 27.02.2019, and presented the
same for registration, that was refused by the 1st respondent on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
that, already the sale agreement in respect of same property was registered
and a second agreement cannot be registered. Challenging the same, the
present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Mr. V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner
would submit that, the agreement of sale registered in respect of immovable
property will not be a bar for the owner of property to effect subsequent
transfer, and the 1st respondent has no right to refuse to register the
document. According to the learned counsel, except the documents
mentioned under Sec.22-A, of Tamil Nadu Registration Act, the 1st
respondent Joint Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register any other
documents. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon recent judgment
of this court passed in W.P. No.674 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020 in the matter
of N.Ramayee Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Salem.
4. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for 2nd
respondent/previous agreement holder, would vehemently content that, the
petitioner is not the owner of property and the property belong to a firm, in
which, the petitioner's father was a partner, without consent of other partner,
the petitioner's father executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
Based on that, he has entered into a sale agreement with the 2nd respondent
and received a part of consideration of more than Rs.1 crore. Thereafter,
without executing the sale deed, now, he has entered into another sale
agreement with a third party and cheated the 2nd respondent. The sale
agreement already registered is in existence in favour of 2nd respondent, and
without cancelling the same, the petitioner cannot enter into a second sale
agreement. Hence, the 1st respondent Joint Sub-Registrar has rightly rejected
the petitioner's document and there is no illegality in the order passed by the
1st respondent.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel
appearing for 2nd respondent and perused the records.
6. The admitted fact is that, the petitioner earlier entered into a sale
agreement with the 2nd respondent, and the same was also registered with the
1st respondent. Pending registration of sale deed, now he has entered into
another sale agreement with a third party and that sale agreement is sought to
be registered. Now, the question is that, whether the existence of earlier sale
agreement is a bar for registering another sale agreement in respect of same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
property. The issue is no more res integra, a Division Bench of this court, in
W.P. No.674 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020, in the matter of N.Ramayee Vs.
The Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Salem, has held that, the
agreement of sale registered in respect of immovable property is not a bar for
registering subsequent document. The relevant portion of the order reads as
follows :-
“37. Accordingly, we answer the reference as follows :-
If an agreement for sale is registered in respect of immovable
property, the same will not be a bar for the owner of the
property to effect subsequent transfers in respect of the same
property. The Registrar has no right to refuse to register the
document except the documents relating to immovable
properties mentioned in Section 22-A of the Tamil Nadu Act
and as contemplated under Rule 162 of the Registration Rules.
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
as discussed in our judgment, 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.”
Considering the above judgment of the Division Bench, registering a second
sale agreement is not prohibited and the 1st respondent Joint Sub-Registrar
cannot refuse to register the sale agreement. Hence, the impugned order
passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. If at all, the sale
agreement is in existence, it is always open to the 2nd respondent to approach
proper forum to redress his grievance and he cannot raise objections for
registering another sale agreement. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands
allowed. The 1st respondent Joint Sub-Registrar is directed to register the
document, if the document is found to be otherwise in order, within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs.
15.07.2021
rpp
To
The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1 -
(District Registrar),
Registration Department,
Collectorate, Coimbatore-641 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
rpp
W.P.No.8913 of 2019
15.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
