Madras High Court
Ultra Ready Mix Private Limited vs The Inspector General Of ... on 1 November, 2021
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
Ultra Ready Mix Private Limited,
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,
K.R. Ananth Kumar
Having its registered Office at
No.25, Trichy Road, Concrete
Kannampalayam Post,
Sulur, Coimbatore-641 402. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Negamam,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to
admit and register a sale certificate (for immovable property) in Edel
ARC/3606/2020-21, dated 30.03.2021 executed by the Authorized Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
M/s.Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, in favour of
the petitioner herein under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 13 r/w Rule 6 of Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules, 2002 with respect to quarry lands comprised in S.F.Nos.151/16,
151/21, 151/9, 151/11, 151/15, 148/6, 148/7, 147/2A, 148/8, 151/18, 147/2,
177/1, 177/6, 178/9, 177/12, 148/4 , 148/5, 147/2A, 151/12 and 148/8 of
Kurunallipalayam Village, and S.F.Nos.153/14 North Part, 153/1 North West
Part, 153/1C, 153/1 Part, 243/3, 243/6, 243/8, 243/12, 243/16, 243/19,
243/23 and 244/2 situated at Andipalayam Village together with a building
thereon around 5650 sqft., both totally measuring an extent of 30.57 Acres
situated at Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District, without insisting for
the production of originals of the title deeds.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sengottuvel
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kanndasan
Government Advocate
-----
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that he could complete all the
formalities to get the sale certificate in their name presented for registration
before the 2nd respondent/Sub Registrar, at that time, the Government of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
Tamil Nadu declared lockdown. Due to the second wave of COVID-19
pandemic situation, the authorized representative of the secured creditor
namely M/s.Edelweiss ARC Pvt. Ltd., could not travel from Mumbai to
Coimbatore. Therefore, the petitioner could not produce the document for
registration before the second respondent. While so, the petitioner herein
represented to M/s.Edelweiss ARC Pvt. Ltd., to hand over all the original
title deeds in favour of Maheshwari, Arulmozhi and Kathirvel - Guarantors
of the aforesaid Company in Liquidation at the time of registration of sale
certificate. It is submitted that M/s.Edelweiss ARC Limited, represented to
the petitioner that all the original title deeds with respect to all the properties
mortgaged by the aforesaid company (in liquidation) are in custody of DRT-
Coimbatore, in the recovery proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India
and they would hand over the same immediately on the receipt of the same
from DRT-Coimbatore after the closure of the said proceedings. Thereafter,
the petitioner made all arrangements to get the sale certificate presented for
registration before the second respondent on 08.10.2021. However, the
second respondent has refused to receive the sale certificate for registration
for want of production of the original title deeds in favour of the original
owners who offered the property as personal security with the State Bank of
India. In the said circumstances, when the petitioner presented the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
documents relating to the property for registration, the second
respondent/Sub Registrar has been refused to register the same insisting
upon the production of original parent document.
2. In one such attempt to register the sale certificate, the petitioner
presented a certified copy of the original documents of mortgaged property
in favour of the petitioner executed by the Authorized Officer in Edel
ARC/3606/2020-21, dated 30.03.2021 in favour of the petitioer under
SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, the second respondent/Sub Registrar has
refused to register the said document. The refusal of the respondent is only
on the basis of the fact that the parental document has not been produced for
perusal of the Authority.
3. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the Inspector General
of Registration, Chennai, had issued a circular dated 15.09.2010, which
requires the production of original title deeds to the Authority concerned for
the purpose of registration. However, according to the petitioner, this Court
has consistently held that the Registering Authority cannot insist on
production of original title deeds as a matter of precondition for registration
of the documents. According to the Courts, such pre-condition is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
provided in the statute.
4. Mr.P.Sengottuvel, who has entered appearance on behalf of the
petitioner, would reiterate the above facts and also would drew the attention
of this Court to three decisions of this Court, which read as under:-
(i) 2011-2-L.W.648 (K.S. Vijayendran v. The Inspector General of
Registration, Chennai, and others). The observation of the learned Single
Judge of this Court reads as under:-
"10. None of the provisions of the Act or the Rules
contemplate the Registrar to require the party
appearing before him for presenting document to
produce the original title deeds relating to the
property so as to satisfy himself about the ownership
of the executant in respect of the property sought to
be executed."
(ii) 2015 Online SCC Mad 5868, Lakshmi Ammal v. The Sub
Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Villivakkam, Chennai and Others.
In the above case also, the learned Single Judge of this Court has
clearly held that insistence on production of original title deeds through the
circular dated 25.11.2012 was found to be not having any statutory force, in
view of the absence of any provision in the Act. The observation of the
learned Single Judge is extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
“4........... Further, the petitioner also
produced the encumbrance certificate from 1987 till
date showing nil encumbrance. When the petitioner
insisted upon a written order, the impugned order
was passed by relying upon a circular issued by the
Inspector General of Registration, dated 25.11.2012
and stated that since the petitioner did not produce
the original sale deed, dated 07.09.2011, the
settlement deed cannot be admitted for registration.
Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has
been filed. ............10.For the reasons stated above, I
am of the considered view that the impugned order
of the first respondent dated 05.09.2012 is liable to
be set aside and accordingly, set aside and the writ
petition stands allowed. The first respondent is
directed to register the deed of release on
presentation by the petitioner in respect of the
property in question. He is directed to register the
document on the date of presentation without
making the parties to run from pillar to post. He is
also directed to do so on receipt of the order copy
from this Court or on production of the same. No
order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
(iii) 2018 Online SCC Mad 3898, C.Moorthy v. The Sub Registrar,
Aruppukottai. In the above decision, yet another learned Single Judge of
this Court has clearly held as under:-
“6.The learned Counsel for the respondent
fairly conceded that the legal position reiterated by
this Court in several judgments have not been
followed and that the Registering Officer in 5/12
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020
this case has no authority to return the document for
production of original document of title based on the
circular, as the same circular was earlier considered
by this Court in the judgment cited by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner. As held by this Court
earlier, there is no provision in the Registration Act,
1908 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1983,
which confers power to the Registering Officers to
insist production of original parental document. The
Executive orders cannot be issued contrary to Rules
framed in exercise of power conferred any statute. In
this case production of parent document is not
possible without redemption of mortgage.”
5. The learned counsel therefore would submit that the issue as to
whether the original title deeds should be produced for registration by the
party concerned or whether the Registering Authority can insist on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
production of original title deeds as a pre-condition for registration is no
more res-integra.
6. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Government Advocate, who has
entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, would submit that recently
a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.16768 of 2020, dated
26.11.2020, had taken a different view and he has produced a copy of the
unreported order of the learned single Judge. He would rely upon the
paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the said order, which are extracted hereunder:-
“8.This Court has already considered the
issue in W.P. (MD) No.2657 of 2020, wherein, it is
held that there are certain occasions where the
original documents may not be available with the
executor of the documents and that if there is any
reasonable doubt about the identity of the person
executing the documents, the original documents
can be dispensed with. The entire circular issued
on 25.04.2012 cannot be questioned. In fact, the
circular issued by the Inspector General of
Registration should be appreciated, as in order to
avoid duplication of registration and fraudulent
registration of the very same property, it has been
issued. The contention of the respondent that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis extract mentioned by him supra cannot be read in
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
isolation and it got to be read as a whole.
9. Apart from the directions given by this
Court in W.P. (MD) No.2657/2020 dated
19.02.2020, this Court is of the view that if the Sub
Registrar has got any doubt about the documents,
copy of the parent documents, which is available
in the office of the Sub Registrar, can very well be
verified about the genuineness of the certified
documents produced by the petitioner. Even
assuming that the executor is a genuine person
and producing fake documents, it is open to the
Sub Registrar to refuse to register the document.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the condition
may be included in the Circular by way of
amendment stating that the Sub Registrar will have
to verify the records of the parent document from
their office or from the office, where the said
document is obtained and produced, as the Sub
Registrars office have been bifurcated many times,
scrutinize the same and after completely satisfied
with the document, referring to those documents,
he can register the same so that no prejudice
would be cause to any person, more so, the buyer.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the authorities.”
7. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
Court has consistently held in a number of decisions that such insistence is
nowhere found in the provision of the Registration Act and therefore, the
latest decision of the learned single Judge may not be a correct view.
8. This Court is entirely in agreement with the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner in this regard. The latest decision of the learned
single Judge appears to have not considered the implication of the circular
with reference to the scheme of the relevant Act. On the other hand, the
above three decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner would certainly hold
the field and in which event, insistence on production of original title deeds
by the Registering Authority is without any authority of law. The circular
issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in this regard
cannot have any sanctity, unless the power of issuance of such circular is
authorized under the provisions of the Act. This Court has consistently held
that no such power can be read into the Act, in the absence of any specific
provisions and in that view of the matter, as rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the subject issue is no more res-integra. As far as
the latest decision of the learned single Judge is concerned, being a kind of a
contra view, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned
single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.16768 of 2020, dated 26.11.2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
has not appreciated the provisions of the Act, as the reasons of the learned
single Judge are contrary to the well considered earlier judgments of this
Court. The learned Judge has reasoned without any specific reference to the
scheme of the Act, which governs the registration.
9. In fact, in one of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent himself has
conceded the legal position. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by
the Department on the latest order of the learned single Judge needs to be
held as not valid.
10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of and
the respondents are hereby directed to register the documents presented by
the petitioner for registration, if the document is otherwise in order, without
insisting on the production of original parent document, in terms of the law
laid down by this Court in the three decisions as cited supra. No costs.
Index:Yes / No 01.11.2021
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
msm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
msm
W.P.No. 23423 of 2021
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
