Raja @ P.Ashok Kumar … vs The Inspector General Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7486 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7486 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2023

Madras High Court

Raja @ P.Ashok Kumar … vs The Inspector General Of ... on 4 July, 2023

                                                                             W.P. No. 19532 of 2017

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 04.07.2023

                                                   CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                             W.P. No. 19532 of 2017
                                                      and
                                            W.M.P. No. 21098 of 2017

                Raja @ P.Ashok Kumar                                              … Petitioner

                                                      -vs-

                1. The Inspector General of Registration
                   100, Santhom High Road
                   Chennai – 600 028.

                2. The District Registrar
                   (Administration)
                   Namakkal
                   Namakkal District.

                3. The Sub Registrar
                   Rasipuram SRO
                   Rasipuram
                   Namakkal District.

                4. Anusuya

                5. K.Jayanthilal                                               ... Respondents

                Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to
                issue a Circular under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 to prevent the
                respondents 4 and 5 from registering any document pending litigation in respect
                of the properties comprised in S.No. 156/3A (2.00 Acres), S.No.156/3B (10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/8
                                                                                  W.P. No. 19532 of 2017

                cents) S.No.164/5 (30 cents), S.No.165/1B (11 cents) and S.No.165/1B1 (12
                cents) of Muthukalipatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District by
                considering the petitioner's protest petition dated 09.05.2015.

                                  For Petitioner      :      Mr. N.Manokaran

                                  For Respondents     :      Mr. D.Ravichander (RR 1 to 3 & 8)
                                                             Special Government Pleader

                                                             Mr. C.Jagadish (R5)

                                                             R4 – Not ready in notice


                                                    ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the

1st respondent to issue a Circular under Section 69 of the Registration Act,

1908 to prevent the respondents 4 and 5 from registering any document

pending litigation in respect of the properties comprised in S.No. 156/3A (2.00

Acres), S.No.156/3B (10 cents) S.No.164/5 (30 cents), S.No.165/1B (11 cents)

and S.No.165/1B1 (12 cents) of Muthukalipatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk,

Namakkal District by considering the petitioner's protest petition dated

09.05.2015.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No. 19532 of 2017

2. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the respondents 4 and 5 are

attempting to register the document during the pendency of the Civil Suit. In

the event of any such registration, it would cause prejudice to the interest of the

petitioner. The petitioner claims right over the subject property described in the

present writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the

Registering Authority cannot proceed with registration during the pendency of

the Civil Suit.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 brought to the notice

of this Court that the Civil Suit instituted between the parties were dismissed

for default. Therefore, there is no impediment for registering any document.

The learned counsel for the petitioner objected the said contention by stating

that the suits were dismissed for default and applications are to be filed to

restore the suit.

4. May that as it be. Even pendency of the suit cannot be a bar for

registering a document, unless there is an interim order of prohibition against

any such registration is obtained from the competent Civil Court of law. Mere

pendency of the Civil Suit between the private parties cannot be a ground to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No. 19532 of 2017

deny registration by the Registering Authority. If at all any such registration is

falling under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, that alone is to be refused

by the authorities and in respect of private disputes, there is no prohibition

proceed with the registration. It is relevant to rely on the judgment in the case

of Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam -vs- The

Inspector General of Registration in [2021 (1) CTC 535], which reads as

under:-

“ 10. The 5th respondent has approached the Civil Court

and he has filed O.S.No.48 of 2019, seeking for the relief of

partition and separate possession of 1/27th share in the suit

properties. It is also seen that the 5th respondent has filed

yet another suit in O.S.No.58 of 2017 in which she has

claimed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining

the defendants not to alienate the suit properties. In both

the suits, there is no order passed by the competent Civil

Court injuncting from dealing with the suit properties.

What the 5th respondent was not able to achieve before the

Civil Court is now sought to be achieved through the 3rd

respondent by virtue of a letter given before this Court

dated 21.02.2020. The 3rd respondent is a statutory https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No. 19532 of 2017

authority, who has to strictly perform his function in

accordance with law. This Court exercising its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of Constitution of India can never

prevent a statutory authority from performing his function.

Therefore unless and otherwise a competent civil court

passes any interim order restraining the alienation of the

property, the 3rd respondent has to entertain the documents