Madras High Court
A.Vetri vs The Inspector General Of ... on 19 July, 2023
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
A.Vetri ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.the Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Periyakulam Registration District,
Periyakulam,
Theni.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Theni Sub-Registrar Office,
Theni. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
order passed by the second respondent in Mo.Mo.No.5178/E2/2014 dated
10.04.2015 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
None appears for the writ petitioner.
2.The petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings whereby the FIR
was ordered to be registered against the petitioner, his father and others. The
property in question was assigned in favour of the petitioner’s father
Alagumuthu. He had sold the property in favour of the one Viswanathan while
Document No.2537 of 1983. The said Viswanathan subsequently sold the
property in favour of one Gandhimathi. Suppressing the said alienation,
Alagumuthu executed the petition mentioned sale deed in favour of the writ
petitioner / A.Vetri vide Document No.6379/2012 dated 27.12.2012. Aggrieved
by the same, rival parties lodged complaint for cancellation of the sale deed by
invoking Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011. Enquiry was initiated. At this
stage, the Inspector General of Registration directed that proceedings initiated
under Circular No.67 shall be kept in abeyance. Since the second respondent
was satisfied that Alagumuthu had settled the property even without any iota of
right or title and since it was falsely claimed that he was having title, the third
respondent was directed to cause registration of FIR against all the persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
including the petitioners who were associated with the settlement deed.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the second respondent, the present writ
petition came to be filed.
3. Even though none appears for the writ petitioner, I went through the
averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to see if
the impugned proceedings are legally sustainable.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that under Section 82 (a) of the Registration Act, 1908,
in the event of a document presented for registration containing a false
statement, the registering authority is very much empowered to initiate
prosecution. In this case, the second respondent has only set the law in motion.
He has not formally initiated any prosecution against the writ petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader sought to make
distinction between setting the law in motion and actual prosecution. When I
indicated that the judgment of the Patna High Court in AIR 1924 Pat 754
(Mt.Gobindia and others vs King-Emperor) is against the legal position now
canvassed by the respondents, the learned Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
submitted that on account of introduction of the registration rules, the said
judgment may not have any binding value. He would also submit that this
Court is obliged to take note of the subsequent developments which are aimed
at preventing execution of documents by persons without title. He pressed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I carefully considered the said contentions and went through the
materials on record.
7. The question is whether the settlor who had already divested himself
of title over the land by executing the petition mentioned settlement deed in
favour of the writ petitioner can be said to have committed a penal act
warranting prosecution under the Registration Act. Section 82 of the
Registration Act, 1908 is as follows:
“82.Penalty for making false statements, delivering false
copies or translations, false personation, and abetment.—
Whoever—
(a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on
oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any
officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or
enquiry under this Act; or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
(b) intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any
proceeding under section 19 or section 21, a false copy or
translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or
(c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed
character presents any document, or makes any admission or
statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or
does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act;
or
(d) abets anything made punishable by this Act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
We are concerned with Section 82 (a). The material words are “ false statement”
and “in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act”. Under Rule 55 of the
Registration Rules, the registering authority is bound to conduct enquiry into
the objections if raised by any contestant. Rule 55 of the Registration Rules is
as follows:
“55. It forms no part of a registering officer’s duty to enquire into
the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to
attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a
document based on the ground that the executing party had no
right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider
objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before
him are not the persons they profess to be;
(b) that the document is forged;
(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or
agent, has not right to appear in that capacity;
(d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged
by the party applying for registration; or
(e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a
lunatic.”
If during the course of such enquiry, a false statement is made by a party, that
would certainly attract the aforesaid penal provision. Merely because a false
recital is found in the document presented for registration, that would not
amount to making a false statement in any enquiry or proceeding under the Act.
In AIR 1924 Pat 754 (Mt.Gobindia and others Vs. King-Emperor) it was held
as follows:
“4. The proceeding or enquiry referred to in the
Section must be a proceeding or enquiry as prescribed by the
Act. The Act nowhere prescribes any enquiry by the
Registration Officer as regards the truth or falsity of any
recital in a deed. All that the Registering Officer is required to
enquire into is as to whether the document presented before
him for registration was or was not executed by the person by
whom it purports to have been executed. The enquiries
prescribed are those provided for in Section 34 and Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
35 of the Registration Act, and I am clearly of opinion that the
Sub-Registrar had no jurisdiction to enquire as regards the
truth or falsity of any recital in the deed and the enquiry as
contemplated by Section 82, cl.(a) does not refer to an enquiry
as regards the truth or falsity of any recital in the deed. In this
view of the case I agree with the learned Sessions Judge and
hold that no offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act
can be brought home to the accused in the present case and
the order of commitment must be quashed under Section 215
of the Cr PC.”
A learned Judge of this Court in M.Mohan Vs The Sub Registrar in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4403 of 2018 dated 26.09.2019 had adopted the very same
approach. It was observed thus :
“7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment in the case of Mt.Gobindia and others Vs.
King Emperor reported in AIR 1924 Patna 754 which was
held that the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to enquire as
regards the truth or falsity of any recital in a deed. The
proceeding or enquiry in Section 82 (a) must be a proceeding
or enquiry as prescribed by the Act.”
8.Respectfully following the said decisions, I hold that making a false
recital in document by itself will not attract Section 82(a) and 82-A of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
The impugned order is without jurisdiction. It is quashed to the extent it directs
initiation of prosecution against the writ petitioners and others.
9. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.07.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
MGA
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.the Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Periyakulam Registration District,
Periyakulam,
Theni.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Theni Sub-Registrar Office,
Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
W.P(MD)No.16475 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
19.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
