Madras High Court
Shahul Hameed vs The District Registrar on 2 March, 2021
W.P.No 22107 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P. No. 22107 of 2012
and M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Shahul Hameed .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Thindivanam.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Vanur Registration Office,
Vanur.
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 4.
4.Saleema Beevi
5.Fareeda Begum .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 & 2 from registering
any document presented by respondents 4 & 5 or their men and agents from any
manner causing an encumbrance in respect of the property comprised in
S.No.207/1 B, in Kottakuppam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District of an
extent of 0.99.00 Hectare or 2.34 acres in Patta No.1600.
For Petitioners : Mr. N.A.Nissar Ahmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P.No 22107 of 2012
For Respondent 1-3 : Mr. M.Elumalai
Additional Government Pleader
4&5 : No appearance
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for issuing a writ of madamus forbearing
respondents 1 and 2 from registering any document presented by respondents 4
and 5 thereby causing encumbrance in respect of the property comprised in
S.No.207/1 B, in Kottakuppam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.
2. The petitioner states that the property measuring an extent of about
0.99.0 Hectares equivalent to 2.34 acres in S.No.207/1B, in Kottakuppam
Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, belonged to his father late
Mohammed Yasin. It is further stated that his father inherited the property from
the petitioner's grand father. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of
petitioner's father on 26.06.2002, the properties of his father devolved on the
petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 and one Zeenathul Munawara who are
the sisters of the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the patta for the property was not even
transferred in the name of the petitioner and the other legal heirs of petitioner's
father and that therefore respondents 3 and 4 has no right to deal with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 22107 of 2012
property. The petitioner expressed his grievance that his right will be defeated if
the respondents 3 and 4 are allowed to create a third party interest. Hence the
petitioner has come before this Court for a direction to the Registering
Authorities not to entertain any document for registration if it is executed by
respondents 3 and 4.
4. The petitioner himself has admitted the right of respondents 3 and 4 as
co-owners. The petitioner's sisters are co-owners and they are entitled to a share
by succession. When the property stands in the name of petitioner's father and
patta stood in his name, the property can be dealt with by all the heirs to the
extent they are entitled to by succession. The petitioner, one of the co-owners,
cannot prevent his sisters who are the other co-owners to deal with their share to
which property they are entitled.
5. In the present case the petitioner cannot prevent the Registering
Authority to entertain any document in respect of the property to which he is
entitled to a share. The provisions of Registration Act does not deal with the
situation preventing the registration on the objections of the other co-owners.
The power of Registrar is explained in several judgments on the interpretations
of provisions of Registration Act. The Registrar can refuse to register the
document either under Section 22 A of the Act or under Section 71 of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 22107 of 2012
This Court has repeatedly held that the scope of enquiry by the Registrar, at the
time when a document is presented for registration, relates to the identity of
parties as contemplated under Section 34 of the Registration Act. Rule 55 of the
Registration Act is also relevant. The combined reading of Section 34 and Rule
55 of the Registration Act indicates that Registering Officer need not conduct
any enquiry to decide the title of parties to the document presented for
registration. The Registering Officer can refuse to register only when he is
satisfied that a document presented for registration is illegal or registration is
opposed to public policy. The petitioner states that a civil suit is pending. If that
is so, the petitioner's right is also protected and transaction or alienation will be
subject to final outcome of the suit. The interest of the petitioner is therefore
protected.
6. This Court finds no merits in the writ petition. Even if respondents 4
and 5 execute any document of conveyance representing that they are entitled
to, the petitioner is not a party of the document. If a relief is granted, that will
affect the rights of individuals particularly respondents 4 and 5 who are
otherwise entitled to deal with the property at least to the extent they are entitled
to as legal heirs of the petitioner's father.
7. As a result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 22107 of 2012
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is also open to the petitioner to
approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.
02.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
bkn
To
1.The District Registrar,
Tindivanam.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Vanur Registration Office,
Vanur.
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No 22107 of 2012
S.S.SUNDAR. J.,
bkn
W.P. No. 22107 of 2012
02.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
