Madras High Court
E.Shanthi vs The Inspector General Of ... on 22 October, 2021
W.P.No.5179 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P. No.5179 of 2017
and W.M.P No.5491 of 2017
1. E.Shanthi
2. P.Sethuraman ... Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Inspector General Office,
No.120, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 026.
2. The District Registrar,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Kadathur,
Government Higher Secondary School Road,
Kadathur Town & Post – 635 303,
Pappireddipatti Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
4. M.Vadivel
5. M.Manivannan
6. K.P.Shanmugam
7. D.Balaji
8. D.Rathinavelu
9. Gowtham Jeyakumar Siddaharth ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.5179 of 2017
Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the third respondent pertaining to the Check Slip dated 13.02.2017
& quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to register &
release the Sale Deed dated 13.02.2017 in respect of the property situated in
Survey No.354, Maniampadi Village, Pappereddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri
District.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Valliappan
For Respondents
For R1 to R3 : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Government Advocate.
For R4 to R9 : No appearance
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the third
respondent pertaining to the Check Slip dated 13.02.2017 & quash the same
and consequently direct the third respondent to register & release the Sale
Deed dated 13.02.2017 in respect of the property situated in Survey No.354,
Maniampadi Village, Pappereddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner executed sale
deed dated 13.02.2017 in favour of the second petitioner in respect of the
property situated in S.No.354, Maniampadi Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk,
Dharmapuri District and presented the same for registration before the third
respondent. However, the third respondent refused to register the same and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5179 of 2017
returned the Check Slip dated 13.02.2017 for the reason that the respondents 4
to 9 herein have registered an Agreement for Sale, in respect of the very same
property vide document No.1559/2013. Further revealed that in this regard, a
suit in O.S.No.39 of 2014 is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District. According to the petitioners, the
respondents 4 to 9 have no right or title over the property and the suit itself is
vexatious and fabricated one. Admittedly, there is no interim order granted in
the said suit as against the registering authority. In fact, the registering
authorities are not party to the said suit. Hence, the petitioners filed this
present Writ Petition with the above said prayer.
3. Heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
4. Admittedly the first petitioner has title over the subject property
and he executed the sale deed in favour of the second petitioner for valid sale
consideration and presented the same for registration. The third respondent
refused to register the document for the reason that the respondents 4 to 9 have
filed suit in O.S.No.39 of 2014 and the same is pending on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5179 of 2017
District Munsif Court, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District and also stated
that they have executed agreement for sale and registered the same vide
document No.1559/2013 dated 15.10.2013.
5. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the pendency of any suit is not impediment for the registering
authority to register the document, when the title is in favour of the executant.
Mere pendency of the suit is not impediment or legal obstacle for registering
sale deed, since there is no interim order as against the registering authority. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in 2021 1 CTC
535 in the case of Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal
Sangam Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., in which this Court
held that the registering authority is being statutory authority, who has to
strictly perform his function in accordance with law. Unless and otherwise a
Competent Civil Court passes any Interim Order restraining the alienation of
the property, the registering authority has to entertain the documents and
register the same, if it is otherwise in order. Ultimately, even if the suit is
decreed, the transaction will be subject to the Rule of lis pendens. There is no
law in force which says that no transaction can take place during the pendency
of the Suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5179 of 2017
6. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court reported in 2020 6 CTC 697 in the case of N. Ramayee vs. The
Sub-Registrar, Registration Department and Ors., which held that if transfer
is made during a pending suit, such transfer is not void but is subject to the
result of the suit. Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, deals with
fraudulent transfer. Even such fraudulent transfer is made with intent to defeat
or delay the creditors of the transferor shall be voidable at the option of any
creditor so defeated or delayed. Even in such cases the rights of transferee in
good faith and for consideration is protected. Further held that if 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.
7. In view of the above dictum laid down by this Court, the third
respondent 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5179 of 2017
Rules. Hence, the above judgments are squarely applicable to the present case
and the impugned Check Slip dated 13.02.2017 cannot be sustained as against
the petitioners and it is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the Check Slip dated 13.02.2017 issued by the third
respondent is hereby quashed. The petitioners are directed to file an affidavit
to the effect that in the pending suit in O.S.No.39 of 2014, on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District, there is no interim
injunction in respect of the subject property. On such filing, the third
respondent is directed to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners
dated 13.02.2017, if it is otherwise in order, within a period of six weeks from
the date of filing of the above said affidavit.
9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
22.10.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5179 of 2017
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Inspector General Office,
No.120, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 026.
2. The District Registrar,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Kadathur,
Government Higher Secondary School Road,
Kadathur Town & Post – 635 303,
Pappireddipatti Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5179 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
W.P. No.5179 of 2017
and W.M.P No.5491 of 2017
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
