Madras High Court

M/S. Sri Lakshmi Ammal ... vs The Sub-Registrar on 2 November, 2021

                                                                                W.P.No.21145 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   Dated : 02.11.2021

                                                      CORAM

                            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                       W.P.Nos.21145, 21147 and 21149 of 2021


                     M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ammal Educational Trust,
                     Represented by its Trustee, Mr. J. Sundeep Anand,
                     Having its registered office at,
                     No.29, Tilak Street, T. Nagar,
                     Chennai - 600 017                                           .... Petitioner
                                                                   (In W.P. No.21145 of 2021)

                     M/s. The Chrome Leather Company Limited,
                     Represented by its Vice-President
                     G. Vairakumar,
                     No.7, Works Road, Chrompet,
                     Chennai - 600 044.                                       ... Petitioner
                                                       (In W.P.Nos.21147 & 21149 of 2021)

                                                        Vs.

                     The Sub-Registrar,
                     Pallavaram,
                     Chennai.                                                     ... Respondent
                                                                          (In All Writ petitions)


                     Common Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the

                     Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent

                     1/16


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        W.P.No.21145 of 2021

                     to release the Rectification Deed, which was presented for registration on

                     29.10.2020 by the petitioners herein, kept by the respondent herein in

                     pending document Nos.P/Pallavaram/169/2020, P/Pallavaram/170/2020 and

                     P/Pallavaram/171/2020 within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble High

                     Court and pass orders accordingly.


                                          For Petitioners         : Mr.N.R.Elango, Sr. Advocate
                                                                         (For M/s.Aswinprasana)

                                          For Respondent :        : Mr.V. Veluchamy
                                                                    (Government Advocate)

                                                               *****

COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Sub-Registrar/the

respondent herein to release the Rectification Deed, which was presented

for registration on 29.10.2020 by the petitioners herein, kept by the

respondent herein in pending document Nos.P/Pallavaram/169/2020,

P/Pallavaram/170/2020 and P/Pallavaram/171/2020 within the time frame

as fixed by this Hon'ble High Court and pass orders accordingly.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

2. The case of the petitioners is that the Petitioner in W.P.No.21145

of 2021 namely, M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ammal Educational Trust, who is a

Educational Trustee had got leasehold right over the properties of M/s.The

Chrome Leather Company Limited who is the petitioner in W.P.Nos.21147

and 21149 of 2021 by means of two registered Lease Deeds dated

22.12.1998 under Document Nos.2854 & 2855 of 1998 on the file of SRO,

Pammal. The aforesaid M/s.Chrome Leather Company Limited was

incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It had purchased

substantial properties on 14.03.1944 by means of a Registered Sale Deed

under Document No.530 of 1944. The erstwhile management of the

Petitioner-Company had come into the hands of Mrs. Ida L Chambers, wife

of Late Mr. George Alexander Chambers by virtue of a Compromise Decree

dated 19-02-1965 in C.S.46 of 1963 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.

Mrs.Ida L Chambers entered into an agreement on 21.04.1965 with

N.Nagappa Chettiar for selling the shares of the Petitioner-Company and

thereafter, the shares had also been sold and the same had also been

affirmed by Mrs. Ida L Chambers herself in a Counter affidavit sworn by

her in Application No.2297 of 1965 in C.S.46 of 1963.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

(2.1) The Management under A.Nagappa Chettiar had pledged the

shares of the Petitioner-Company with the Central Bank of India. Upon

default in repayment of loan, the Central Bank of India filed a Civil Suit for

recovery against the Petitioner-Company in O.S.314 of 1980 and

preliminary decree and final decree had been passed in favour of the Central

Bank of India. The properties owned by the Petitioner-Company had also

been mentioned in the decree passed in O.S.No.314 of 1980. Thereafter, the

petitioner-Company was referred to BIFR and later on, the Central Bank of

India floated a Tender for selling the shares of the Petitioner-Company.

Upon successful bid and transfer of shares, the present Management has

taken charge of the Petitioner-Company. The Petitioner-Company remains

the owner of the immovable properties in various survey numbers at Zamin

Pallavaram Village, Pallavaram Taluk.

(2.2). The Petitioner-Company has leased out certain properties to

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ammal Educational Trust by means of a Registered Lease

Deed dated 22.12.1998 under Document Nos. 2854 and 2855 of 1998 on the

file of SRO, Pammal. The aforesaid Lease is for a period of 99 years and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

the said Lease is still in force. The aforesaid Lease has been taken by M/s.

Sri Lakshmi Ammal Educational Trust for the purpose of running

educational institutions and now there are educational institutions in the

leasehold properties and the Lessee is in possession of the same. In

pursuance of the Lease Deed dated 22.12.1998, the Lessee M/s.Lakshmi

Anmal Educational Trust has leased out the properties to M/s.Bharath

Institute of Higher Education Research, a society registered under the Tamil

Nadu Societies Registration Act, in the year 2009, under Document No.724

of 2010 on the file of SRO, Pallavaram. M/s.Bharath Institute of Higher

Education and Research has been recognized as Deemed to be University as

per section 3 of the UGC Act and under its control several educational

institutions are functioning in the leasehold properties.

(2.3).The title and possession of the Petitioner-Company had also

been affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.Nos.33248 and 33249 of 2007

vide order dated 01.02.2008 in a proceeding against the rival complaint of

the Petitioner-Company. Further, the rival claim has also been dismissed by

this Hon'ble Court in Application No.3899 of 2007 in O.P.No.178 of 1969

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

vide order dated 08-07-2008. As such, the possession and title of the

Petitioner-Company has been continuously recognized by this Hon'ble

Court in various proceedings. Further, the aforesaid rival claimants had also

initiated false criminal complaints against the erstwhile Director of the

Petitioner-Company in Crime Nos.304 and 305 of 2007 on the file of City

Crime Branch X, Chennai. After investigation, the CCB has closed the FIR

as Mistake of Fact and the same had also been recorded before the Judicial

Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee and though a protest petition has been filed

and the same was also dismissed. Later on, upon a political mala-fide, the

aforesaid case was reopened with new Crime Nos.2 and 3 of 2016 and

investigation transferred to CBCID, Chennai and the said cases are

pending.

(2.4) As against the aforesaid FIRs, the erstwhile Director of the

Company, has filed Crl.O.P. No.12985 and 12986 of 2020 before this

Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR wherein this Hon'ble Court has granted

interim reliefs and the said quash petitions are pending for adjudication.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

(2.5) In the meanwhile, in the month of September, 2020, during the

internal legal audit, the Petitioner-Company has found certain typographical

error and mistakes in the sub-division numbers and extent in some cases in

the Lease Deed dated 22.12.1998. It has also been ascertained that such

mistake crept in view of the relying of entire schedule properties as

mentioned in O.S.No.314 of 1980. Though there are some mistakes in the

sub-division numbers, extents of properties, there is a consensus-ad-idem

between the Petitioner-Company and the Lessee regarding the identity of

the properties. After ascertaining such mistakes, the Petitioner-Company has

decided to execute a Rectification Deed to the Lease Deed dated 22.12.1998

so as to correct the errors crept while executing the Lease Deed dated

22.12.1998. In view of the changes in the Lease Deed on 22.12.1998, the

Petitioner-Educational Trust has also decided to execute a Rectification

Deed in favour of Bharath Institutes of Higher Education and Research.

Accordingly, the Petitioner-company and the Petitioner-Educational Trust

have executed a Rectification Deed on 29.10.2020 in the terms as executed

herein before and paid the stamp duty in proper and presented the

Rectification Deed to the Respondent for registration. Even though the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

Petitioner Company has complied with all the formalities required for

registration and paid the stamp duty and registration charges for the

Rectification Dead, upon receipt of the Rectification Deed dated

29.10.2020, the Respondent has kept the Rectification Deed as pending

document in Pending Document Nos. P/Pallavaram/169/2020

P/Pallavaram/170/2020 and P/Pallavaram/171/2020 under Receipt

Nos.10750/2020 10751/2020 and 10752/2020 dated 29-10-2020 with a

specific note that time is required for analyzing the Rectification Deed and

hence the Rectification Deed is kept pending. Despite the Petitioner-

Company and the Petitioner-Educational Trust have approached several

occasion for getting the said Rectification Deeds. But the same has been

postponed by the Respondent without assigning any reasons. The

Petitioners have also bonafidely waited for release of the document, but no

fruitful reply had been given by the respondent. Even after the lapse of

almost one year, the respondent herein has retained the Rectification Deeds

without any progress. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present Writ

petitions for releasing the same within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioners are unable to get their own document within a reasonable time

even after the entire payment was made as required under Law while there

is no dispute with regard to the execution of Rectification Deed. After

registration of the Rectification Deed, the Respondent has no right to retain

the documents as per the provisions of the Registration Act. It is also

needless to mention that the Rectification Deed has not impounded under

the Stamp Act. Further, it is only a Rectification Deed to the Lease Deed in

respect of Educational Institutions entered into between the Lessor and

Lessee.

4. It has been further submitted that the Registrar has no right to

retain the document after completion of the Registration and time and again,

this Hon'ble Court has issued directions in this regard in various cases. As

such, the act of retaining the Rectification Deed by the Respondent is

nothing but illegal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

5. To support on his contentions, the learned counsel for the

petitioners has placed reliance on Judgment of this Court reported in 2003-

3-MLJ Page 645 wherein it has been held as follows:

"8. When the document has been registered on payment

of stamp duty, there is no power for the Registering Authority

to retain the document"

As such, the Respondent has no power to retain the document of the

petitioners that too without taking any decision upon the Rectification Deed

presented by them for registration.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the

Petitioner-Company and the Petitioner-Educational Trust -Lessee had filed a

suit in C.S.No.422 of 2015 before this Hon'ble Court for damages and for

the relief of permanent injunction. The aforesaid suit is posted for evidence.

Since there is alteration in the schedule of properties to the Lease Deed by

way of Rectification Deed, the Petitioner-Company is in a position to amend

the plaint in C.S.No.422 of 2015 for the purpose of proceeding with the case

and for the purpose of seeking amendment, the registered Rectification

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

Deed is very much necessary. All the requests of the Petitioners with the

Respondent are ended in vain and no reply has been given by the

Respondent.

7. The learned counsel would further submit that Rule 102 of

Registration Rules prescribe that "A Document shall, if possible, be

returned on the date of its admission to Registration". As such, it is

obligatory on the part of the respondent to return the documents

immediately upon registration. Further, Rule 106 stipulates that Registering

Officer can retain the document only if he satisfies that any person has

applied to the competent Court for an injunction to restrain the Registering

officer from returning the document. In the case on hand, no suit or any

proceedings had been initiated objecting the return of document from any

corner. So, there is absolutely no lawful prohibition for the Respondent in

returning the Rectification Deed to the Petitioners herein.

8. It has been further submitted that the Respondent, being the

Statutory Authority, is duty bound to release the Rectification Deed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

immediately upon registration by complying the provisions of Registration

Rules and keeping the document as pending one for more than one year in

denial of justice to the Petitioner. In view of such urgency, the Petitioners

are left with no other option except to approach this Hon'ble Court by

invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for

issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to release the

Rectification Deeds which were presented for registration on 29.10.2020 by

the petitioners herein before the respondent which were kept in Pending

Document Nos. P/Pallavaram/169/2020, P/Pallavaram/170/2020, and

P/Pallavaram/171/2020 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent

would submit that if there is no objection from any corner to release the

Rectification Deed and the said document is kept pending for more than

nearly one year, the respondent may be directed to release the document in

accordance with Law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the respondent as well as perused the material available on

records.

11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and

submissions of the learned counsel on either side, it is admitted fact that

where a document has already been registered, the respondent becomes the

functus officio and thereafter, such a registered document can never be

retained by the respondent. At the same time, while there is consensus

arises between the parties, there cannot be any denial of releasing the said

document. Hence, the said petitioners are at liberty to get a Rectification

deed which was rectified the typographical error found in the document.

12. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

of the Judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No.19008 of 1999 and

W.P.(MD) No.11997 of 2021. In the decision reported in 2003-3-MLJ page

645 it was held as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

"8. When the document has been registered on payment of stamp duty, there is no power for the registering authority to retain the document. If the property does not belong to the vendor who executed the sale deed and it belongs to someone else, the real owner may file a suit, before the appropriate court, to set aside the document. Further by any deed of conveyance executed by a person who had no right over the property that is conveyed, no right is conveyed. In such cases, the purchaser takes the risk of losing his money. But on that ground the registering authority or the Collector cannot refuse to return the document registered. The action of the respondent in refusingto release the document on the ground that the sale deed was executed by the person who was not the real owner is not legally sustainable. It is not for the registering authority to verify as to whether the vendor in the sale deed has a right to convey the property mentioned therein. Therefore the action of the respondents is not legal. It is nothing but highhandedness on the part of the respondents. The respondents have no right whatsoever to retain the document when once it has been registered in accordance with the Rules".

and in the decision in W.P. (MD) No.11997 of 2021, it has been held as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21145 of 2021

"6. In the considered view of this Court, mere pendency of a Criminal case can never be a ground for insisting for a "No Objection" Certificate. That apart, where a document has already been registered, the respondent becomes the functus officio and thereafter, such a registered document can never be retained by the respondent. The law on this issue is well settled."

Further, the petitioner-company filed a suit in O.S. No.422 of 2015 before

this Court for damages and relief of permanent injunction and the aforesaid

suit is pending for Trial and recording of evidence. Since there is alteration

in the schedule of properties to the Lease Deed by way of Rectification

Deed, the Parties are in a position to amend the plaint in C.S.No.422 of

2015 for the purpose of proceeding with the case and for the purpose of

seeking amendment, the registered Rectification Deed is very much

necessary.

13. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, this Court

directs the respondent to release the Rectification Deed which was

presented for registration on 29.10.2020 by the petitioners herein within a

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