Madras High Court
Citrex Products Ltd vs The District Registrar on 7 October, 2021
W.A.No.264 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.264 of 2013
Citrex Products Ltd.,
rep by its Director Mr.K.Balasubramanian
“Atkinson Palace” 2-F-1
No.2, Jyothi Venkatachalam Road
Vepery
Chennai 600 007 .. Appellant
-vs-
1. The District Registrar
Chennai North
Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001
2. The Sub Registrar
Ponneri
Tiruvallur District
3. The Inspector General of Registration
State of Tamil Nadu
Santhome High Road
Mylapore
Chennai 600 004
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
4. V.Rajendran
5. Sathish Raj
6. M/s Metafilms (India) Ltd.,
rep.by its Director, Mr.V.Rajendran
No.157/1, GNT Road
Chinnambedu Post
Kavarapet
Tiruvallur District .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 17.04.2012 made in W.P.No.24792 of 2011.
For Appellant :: Mr.R.Subramanian for
M/s G.Rajathi
For Respondents :: Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate for
R1 to R3
Ms.A.Saranya for
M/s Iyer & Thomas for
R4 to R6
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
This writ appeal has been filed by M/s Citrex Products Limited
against the impugned order dated 17.4.2012 passed in Writ Petition
No.24792 of 2011, wherein the prayer for issuance of a mandamus directing
the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section
34 of the Indian Registration Act, with regard to the execution of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
amendment deeds dated 22.1.2009 purported to be executed by the
petitioner company either before registration or before delivery of the
document, was refused.
2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner briefly runs thus:_
M/s Citrex Products Limited, the appellant herein was originally the
owner of larger extent of 30.8 acres of land in Thatchur and Peravallur
villages in Tiruvallur District. Although the company's control and entire
shareholding had passed from the original promoters to the family of one
Mr.V.Rajendran, the fourth respondent herein, subsequently, the control of
the Board of the company has been transferred to the present Directors and
the persons associated with them and that the minority directors of the
family of Mr.V.Rajendran had also retired from the Board. While so, the
execution of three sale deeds pertaining to an extent of 15 acres having been
fraudulently made by Mr.V.Rajendran and his family members, was found
out. Therefore, the same was put to challenge by one M/s Thamiraparani
Investments Limited in O.S.No.57 of 2004 before the Sub Court, Ponneri
and the said suit has been now transferred and pending in re-numbered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
O.S.No.140 of 2020 before the Sub Court, Poonamallee. The appellant also
filed a civil suit in O.S.No.64 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri
for various reliefs and the said suit has been now transferred and pending in
re-numbered O.S.No.141 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.
However, as a counter blast, the fourth respondent and his family members
filed a civil suit in C.S.No.51 of 2005 before this Court for various reliefs
and the said suit is now pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai.
However, when steps were taken by the claimants to amend the above sale
deeds in January, 2009 to change the description of the entire property and
that the registration was also done without proper enquiry, the appellant
filed the writ petition praying for a direction directing the respondents 1 to 3
to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 34 of the Indian
Registration Act, with regard to the execution of the amendment deeds
dated 22.1.2009 purported to be executed by the petitioner company either
before registration or before delivery of the document The learned single
Judge, after hearing both sides, has refused to accept the case of the
appellant/writ petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
3. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended heavily that when the claimants have no authority whatsoever to
execute the rectification deeds in question in the year 2009, as they had
already retired from the Board of the company, the Registering Officer is
mandated to conduct an enquiry and also satisfy himself as to the right of
the person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent, in terms of
Section 34(3)(c) of the Indian Registration Act. However, without
complying with the mandatory procedure, the Registering Officer has
registered the rectification deeds presented for registration, which is per se
illegal. In support thereof, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Full Bench of this Court in M/s Latif Estate Line India Ltd., represented by
its Managing Director Mr.Habib Abdul Latif v. Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal and
others, 2011 (2) CTC 1, learned counsel argued that when the unilateral
cancellation of a sale deed by registered instrument at the instance of the
vendor only encourages fraud and is against public policy, the appellant is
entitled to come to this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for cancellation of the amendment deeds. As the learned single Judge
has refused to accept the appellant's prayer, he pleaded for allowing this writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
appeal.
4. Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2, taking support from the very same Full Bench judgment
cited supra, submitted that when the legal position is well settled that a
complete and absolute sale can be cancelled at the instance of the transferor
only by taking recourse to the civil Court by obtaining a decree of
cancellation of sale deed on the ground inter alia of fraud or any other valid
reasons, the present writ appeal is not legally maintainable. Again taking
support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sathya Pal Anand
v. State of M.P. and others, (2016) 10 SCC 767, he has argued that once the
document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel
that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity, as the
aggrieved party has to challenge the registration and validity of the
document only before the civil Court. In the present case, when the civil
suit in re-numbered O.S.No.140 of 2020 (O.S.No.57 of 2004), in which the
appellant is also one of the plaintiffs, for necessary reliefs is pending before
the Sub Court, Poonamallee, learned Government Advocate pleaded that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
act of the appellant in coming to this Court invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution of India questioning only the registration of the rectification
deeds, is wholly unjustified and untenable.
5. Ms.A.Saranya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6
also submitted that when the parties have already filed various civil suits
and the same are pending, namely, re-numbered O.S.No.140 of 2020
(O.S.No.57 of 2004) on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, another re-
numbered O.S.No.141 of 2020 (O.S.No.64 of 2004) on the file of the Sub
Court, Poonamallee and yet another suit in C.S.No.51 of 2005 before this
Court, now transferred to the file of the City Civil Court, the filing of the
writ petition questioning the correctness of the registration of the
rectification deeds, is wholly unjustified.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the case on hand,
we are being bound by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this
Court in the case of M/s Latif Estate Line India Ltd., represented by its
Managing Director Mr.Habib Abdul Latif v. Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
others, 2011 (2) CTC 1 holding clearly that a complete and absolute sale can
be cancelled at the instance of the transferor only by taking recourse to the
civil Court by obtaining a decree of cancellation of sale deed on the ground
inter alia of fraud or any other valid reasons, which we have also recently
followed in our order dated 28.9.2021 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.59 & 60
of 2016 (S.P.Velayutham etc. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India)
Limited and others), holding as follows:-
“12. Now coming to the core question raised in
these appeals as to whether the registered sale deed
on the ground of fraudulent execution can be
cancelled by the writ Court exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
said issue is no longer res integra, as the Full
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s
Latif Estate Line India Ltd., represented by its
Managing Director Mr.Habib Abdul Latif v.
Mrs.Hadeeja Ammal and others, 2011 (2) CTC 1,
has succinctly held as follows:-
“57. There is no dispute that a third
party can claim title to the property
against the purchaser who purchased the
property for valuable consideration and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
came into possession of the same. But it
is the Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction to give such declaration in
favour of the third party or a stranger.
58. It can also not be overlooked or
ignored that a unilateral cancellation of a
sale deed by registered instrument at the
instance of the vendor only encourages
fraud and is against public policy. But
there are circumstances where a deed of
cancellation presented by both the
vendor and the purchaser for registration
has to be accepted by the Registrar if
other mandatory requirements are
complied with. Hence, the vendor by the
unilateral execution of the cancellation
deed cannot annul a registered document
duly executed by him as such an act of
the vendor is opposed to public policy.
59. After giving our anxious
consideration on the questions raised in
the instant case, we come to the
following conclusion: -
(i) A deed of cancellation of a sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
unilaterally executed by the transferor
does not create, assign, limit or
extinguish any right, title or interest
in the property and is of no effect.
Such a document does not create any
encumbrance in the property already
transferred. Hence such a deed of
cancellation cannot be accepted for
registration.
(ii) Once title to the property is
vested in the transferee by the sale of
the property, it cannot be divested
unto the transferor by execution and
registration of a deed of cancellation
even with the consent of the parties.
The proper course would be to re-
convey the property by a deed of
conveyance by the transferee in
favour of the transferor.
(iii) Where a transfer is effected by
way of sale with the condition that
title will pass on payment of
consideration, and such intention is
clear from the recital in the deed, then
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
such instrument or sale can be
cancelled by a deed of cancellation
with the consent of both the parties
on the ground of non-payment of
consideration. The reason is that in
such a sale deed, admittedly, the title
remained with the transferor.
(iv) In other cases, a complete and
absolute sale can be cancelled at the
instance of the transferor only by
taking recourse to the Civil Court by
obtaining a decree of cancellation of
sale deed on the ground inter alia of
fraud or any other valid reasons.
60. Having regard to the conclusions
arrived at as aforesaid, the questions
referred are answered accordingly. The
appeals are referred back to the concerned
Court for deciding the case on merits.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Further, we must also indicate herein that when the Hon'ble Apex
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
Court in the case of Sathya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., and others, (2016)
10 SCC 767, has also made it clear that once the document is registered, it is
not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his
attention is invited to some irregularity and the course open to the aggrieved
party is to challenge the registration and validity of that document only
before the competent civil Court, we are unable to find any merits in the
writ appeal.
8. However, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, referring to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prayed this
Court to exclude the time of proceeding taken by the appellant while
prosecuting the writ petition and the writ appeal before this Court.
9. In our opinion, when the parties have already filed various civil
suits and the same are pending, namely, re-numbered O.S.No.140 of 2020
(O.S.No.57 of 2004) on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, another re-
numbered O.S.No.141 of 2020 (O.S.No.64 of 2004) on the file of the Sub
Court, Poonamallee and yet another suit in C.S.No.51 of 2005 before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
Court, now transferred to the file of the City Civil Court,, it is for the
appellant to move an appropriate application before the jurisdictional trial
Court, that may be considered by the trial Court concerned on merits.
10. With this observation, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However,
there is no order as to costs.
Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
Index : yes/no 07.10.2021
ss
To
1. The Sub Registrar
Ponneri
Tiruvallur District
2. The Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Pattinapakkam
Chennai 600 028
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.264 of 2013
T.RAJA, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
ss
W.A.No.264 of 2013
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
