Madras High Court
The Sub-Registrar vs A.R.Sachidhanandh on 10 August, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRVARTHY
W.A(MD)NO.1312 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9934 of 2023
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Othakadai,
Madurai – 625 107.
2.The District Registrar/ADM,
Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Madurai North Region District,
Madurai – 625 107.
:Appellants/Petitioners/Respondents
.vs.
A.R.Sachidhanandh : Respondent/Respondent/Writ
Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.M.P(MD)No.8745 of 2023 in W.P(MD)No.5710 of 2022, dated
25.4.2023 and remitting the matter back to the learned Writ Court
to clarify the order passed in W.P(MD)No.5710 of 2022, dated
31.3.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellants :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Addl.Advocate General
for Mr.J.Ashok
Addl.Govt.Pleader
For Respondent :Mr.Issac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Venkatesh
JUDGMENT
*********
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order in the Petition
for Clarification sought by the Sub-Registrar, Othakadai in
W.M.P(MD)No.8475 of 2023 in W.P(MD)No.5710 of 2022, dated
25.4.2023.
2.Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel on record, takes notice for the
respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Appeal is taken up
for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.Earlier, the respondent herein filed W.P(MD)No.5710 of 2022
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the
Check Slip, dated 27.7.2021 and to direct the first respondent to
register the Power of Attorney for creation of a mortgage, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.7.2021, after collecting the stamp duty payable in respect of
the said document under Article 6 of the Schedule-I to the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899.The said Writ Petition was allowed after holding
that the Registering Authority has arbitrarily declined to adjudicate
and register the petition mentioned power of attorney. By the
impugned Check Slip, the first appellant refused to register the
power of attorney deed on the ground that a proceeding was
initited for collection of deficit stamp duty in relation to the
memorandum of under standing entered into between the Writ
Petitioner and a third party. The Writ Petitioner represented the
Power of attorney before the first respondent, who has admitted the
same and register the document. As against the order, the appellant
filed a petition for clarification. The issue that was raised and
considered by the learned single Judge while allowing the Writ
Petition is as to whether the order passed by the first appellant
refusing to register the power of attorney deed on the ground
stated in the order is legally valid. The learned Single Judge took a
view that refusal to register the power of attorney deed citing
another document which is pending registration, is not valid.
Therefore the petition for clarification filed by the appellant was also
dismissed as not necessary. It is in the said circumstances, the
above Writ Appeal is filed on the apprehension that the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is now trying to take advantage of the direction passed by the
learned Single Judge and to initiate contempt by forcing the
Registering Officer to register the mortgage deed which is also in
respect of the same property.
4.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants submitted that the Registering Officer has no difficulty
to register the mortgage deed. However, an endorsement is
required to show that the registration of Mortgage deed is subject
to the statutory charge in terms of the provisions of Section 33-A of
the Stamp Duty Act and Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue
Recovery Act. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of
the learned Additional Advocate general .The apprehension of the
learned Additional Advocate General is unfair in the sense that
mortgage is an independent transaction and the Registering
Authority cannot now make endorsement or show any
encumbrance relating to the property on the basis of different
transaction altogether. Even if Statutory charge is created, that is
independent and that can be enforced as against the property. It is
admitted that whether the Memorandum of Understanding is to be
charged as document granting lease for 50 years is the subject-
matter of a different proceedings. The appellant cannot have the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
right to precipitate the issue which arose for consideration in an
entirely different transaction. Therefore this Court finds no merit in
the Writ Appeal.
5.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [D.B.C.,J.]
10.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.1312 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9934 of 2023
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
