Madras High Court
Indrachandlall vs The Inspector General Of ... on 5 October, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
Indrachandlall ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o. the Inspector of General of Registration,
100 Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 008.
2 The District Registrar,
O/o. the District Registrar,
District Court Campus, ‘
Cantonment, Trichy.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thiruvambur,
Trichy. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the the third respondent
to register and release the sale deed dated 21.09.2012 bearing document
No.P/180/2012, pending on the file of the third respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.Govind Chandrasekar
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of writ of
mandamus directing the third respondent to register and release the sale
deed dated 21.09.2012 that has been kept as a pending Document in
Document No.P/180/2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The subject property in Survey No.3/4A measuring an
extent of 1.01 Acres was originally owned by one Palanivelu. He sold his
property in favour of one Ramjan Begum through a registered sale deed
dated 12.03.2001. The said Ramjan Begum sold the property in favour of
the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 21.09.2012. When this
document was presented for registration before the third respondent, the
third respondent kept this document as a pending document on the ground
that the patta is necessary for the completion of registration.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that the above said
Palanivelu had also executed an unilateral cancellation deed dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
25.07.2001, cancelling the sale deed that was executed in favour of the
said Ramjan Begum. The petitioner on coming to know of the same, filed
a suit in O.S.No.877 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Tiruchirappalli, against the said Palanivelu and others, seeking for the
relief of declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. The said suit
was pending and the petitioner wanted to produce the sale deed that was
executed in his favour by the said Ramjan Begum. However, since this
document was kept as a pending document by the third respondent, the
petitioner was not even able to produce the document before the Court.
5. In view of the above, the petitioner has filed the present
Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the third respondent to register and
release the sale deed that was executed in his favour by Ramjan Begum.
6. It is clear from the materials available on record that the
title to the subject property had already transferred in favour of the said
Ramjan Begum and thereafter, the title has passed on in favour of the
petitioner in the year 2012. The unilateral cancellation of the sale deed by
Palanivelu is non-est in the eye of law by virtue of Judgment of the Full
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
Bench of this Court in the case of Sasikala Vs. The Revenue Divisional
Officer cum Sub Collector, Devakottai and others reported in (2022) 7
MLJ 1. Therefore, this unilateral cancellation of the sale deed by the said
Palanivelu will not stand in the way of the petitioner getting the document
registered and released in his favour. Even if the said Palanisamy by
taking advantage of the unilateral cancellation of the sale deed had dealt
with the property once again, the same will also not bind the petitioner,
since the very unilateral cancellation of the sale deed is non-est in the eye
of law.
7. The next ground that has been put against the petitioner is
that the petitioner did not produce the patta with respect to the subject
property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the Judgment of this Court in D.Jesupalam Vs. The Sub Registrar in
W.P.No.5696 of 2015, dated 18.03.2015, wherein, it was held as follows:
“4. It is well settled law that the Registration
Authority has no power to withhold any document
and even in cases, where in respect of the valuation
of the property or dispute raised, Section 47-A of
the Registration Act only contemplates a duty on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
the part of the Registration Authority to register
the document and thereafter, sent it to the
Collector for the purpose of ascertaining the real
market value in order to ascertain the amount to be
paid by the party.
5. The Registration Rules framed as per
Sections 71 and 76 of the Registration Act, in rule
No.162 contemplates circumstances enabling the
Registrar to refuse to register certain documents. A
perusal of the said provision shows that the non-
production of a patta for the purpose of
Registration is not a ground for refusal of
registration of the document.”
8. In view of the above, it was contended that the third
respondent cannot keep the document pending for almost 11 years without
registering the same and releasing the document. The third respondent is
not vested with any right to keep a document pending before him since the
third respondent is a creature of statute, namely, the Registration Act, 1908
and therefore, the third respondent can only act within the bounds of the
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
9. It is clear from the above Judgment that if the third
respondent does not register the document, he has no power to withhold
the document and at the best he can only refer the same under Section
47(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. In the considered view of this Court,
it is unreasonable on the part of the third respondent to have kept the
document pending for 11 years. In view of the same, the petitioner is not
even able to prosecute his right before the Civil Court. Hence, this Court
is inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in this Writ
Petition. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to
register the sale deed and release the document in favour of the petitioner
within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
10. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the
above directions. No costs.
05.10.2023
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
tsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o. the Inspector of General of Registration,
100 Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 008.
2 The District Registrar,
O/o. the District Registrar,
District Court Campus, ‘
Cantonment, Trichy.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thiruvambur,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
tsg
W.P.(MD)No.14550 of 2020
05.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
