Madras High Court
A.Venkattammal vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.15697 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.15697 of 2018
A.Venkattammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Rajakambeeram, Madurai - 625 107.
2.The District Register,
Registration Department,
Shanmugapuram, Periyar Salai,
Palani - 624 003.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Kujiliamparai,
Vedasandur Taluk,
Dindigul District - 624 703.
4.M.Marimuthu
5. Chellammal .... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3
to cancel the sale deed in document No.65/2011 dated 19.01.2011 with regard to
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.15697 of 2018
lands in Mallappapuram Village S.No.283/1, 283/2, 284, 285, 449, 455/2, 457/2,
457/3 and 457/4 situated at Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District based on the
petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.V.Ramesh for R5
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents 1
to 3 to cancel the sale deed in document No.65/2011 dated 19.01.2011, with regard
to lands in Mallappapuram Village S.No.283/1, 283/2, 284, 285, 449, 455/2,
457/2, 457/3 and 457/4 situated at Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District, based on
the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2017.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel
appearing for the fifth respondent and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the subject property is the
ancestral property. The petitioner has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.171 of
2010 as against her brothers and during the pendency of the partition suit, the
petitioner executed an unregistered sale agreement in favour of the 5th respondent
herein on 15.02.2010, by receiving an advance of Rs.3 lakhs. Subsequently, the
petitioner executed another registered sale agreement in favour of the 5th
respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner cancelled the sale agreement in favour of the
5th respondent on 24.02.2012. However, the 5th respondent got the consent deed
for concerning to execute the sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent and
thereafter, the 5th respondent got a sale deed from the 4th respondent. Hence, the
petitioner made a representation before the Registering Authority for cancelling
the sale deed in Document No.65/2011 that was executed by the 4 th respondent
herein in favour of the 5th respondent. Since, no action was taken, the petitioner
has filed this Writ Petition.
4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated
that the petitioner has averred many factual aspects in her affidavit. The said
factual aspects cannot be decided in this Writ Petition and the same can be let in
evidence before the Competent civil forum. Hence, opposed this Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the view that the Registering Authority has no power to go into all these factual
aspects. In Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in
(2016) 10 SCC 767, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power conferred on
the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the registration
of the document already registered. Sections 22-A and 22-B were inserted by
Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2022 and Act 41 of 2022 respectively to prevent registration
of certain category of the documents. Thereafter, Section 77-A has been brought
by Act 41 of 2022 to cancel the document registered in contravention of Sections
22-A and 22-B not beyond it. Now Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 is
also struck down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10291 of
2022 batch as unconditional. Such being the position, this Court is of the definite
view that the title cannot be decided by the Registering Authorities. These facts
have been discussed by this Court in W.P.No.29706 of 2022 [G.Rajasulochana
Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others] and the Order in the writ
petition is as follows:
“... 3. It is relevant to note that the object of the law of registration is to
provide public notice of the transaction embodied therein. The execution of
documents and its validity, the right created or extinguished is governed by
the substantive law namely the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 relates to the factum of
registration alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77 has held as follows:
“The Act only strikes at the documents and not at the transactions.
The whole aim of the Act is to govern documents and not the transactions
embodied therein. Thereby only the notice of the public is drawn.”
4. The practice has been developed in the recent past in Tamil Nadu
to entertain the applications given by the so-called affected parties to cancel
all the documents under the pretext of either forgery or fradulent
transactions. The Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamil
Nadu has brought out Circular No.67 dated 03.11.20211 to deal with the
fraudulent registrations through impersonation. The said circular is mainly
based on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in the case of YanalaMalleshwari v. AnanthulaSayamma, reported in AIR
2007 AP 57. However, the three bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held
that the power of the Registrar, under the Registration Act, is purely
administrative and not quasi-judicial. The same is extracted hereunder:
“34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once
the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan [State
of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787] ). Section
17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory
registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in
Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents,
registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents
containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21
provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the description of houses and land by reference to government maps
and surveys. There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers
the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was
properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after
its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter.
In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume
that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the
registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the
Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices
and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to
cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered.”
5. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that and in the absence
of any express power to cancel the registered document, the Registrar has
no power to cancel the document. Section 68(2) of the Registration Act,
1908 relied upon by the Registration Department to substantiate the
circular in this regard, when carefully seen. Section 68(2) of the
Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows:
“68. Power of Registration to superintend and control Sub Registrars.
(1) every Sub Registrar perform the duties of his office under the
superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of
such Sub Registrar is situate.
(2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (Whether on complaint or
otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary
in respect of any act or omission of any Sub Registrar subordinate to him
or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
office in which any document has been registered.”
6. The above provision makes it clear that the said section confers
power upon the Registrar to supervise and control all the acts of the Sub-
Registar. Sub-Section 2 empowers the Registrar to issue any order
consistent with the Act, which he considers necessary in respect of any act
or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him. Similarly, the
Registrar shall also have power in respect of the rectification of any error
regarding the book or the office in which any document has been
registered. The above power empowering the Registar to issue any order is
a power of superitendence and supervision and not a power vested to
cancel the registration of the document. Therefore, relying upon Section
68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and issuing such circular cannot be
valid in the eye of law. Unless a specific power and express provision is
made in the Act empowering the Registrar to cancel the document, such
powers cannot be conferred by the Inspector General of Registration by
taking aid of 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.”
6. In view of the above settled position of law, unless the power is
specifically vested with the registering authority to cancel any document and to go
into the matter, there cannot be any direction to cancel the document. All these
facts cannot be looked into by this Court and the same has to be agitated before
the civil Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is for
the petitioner to work out her remedy before the civil Court. There shall be no
order as to costs.
06.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Rajakambeeram, Madurai - 625 107.
2.The District Register,
Registration Department,
Shanmugapuram, Periyar Salai,
Palani - 624 003.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Kujiliamparai,
Vedasandur Taluk,
Dindigul District - 624 703.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
06.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
