Madras High Court
S.Abdul Suban Sahib vs R.Rose Mary ... 1St on 6 August, 2024
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
WA.No.2345/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
WA.No.2345/2024 & CMP.Nos.16509 & 16513/2024
S.Abdul Suban Sahib ... Appellant / 4th
Respondent in WP.No.11221/2024
Vs.
1.R.Rose Mary ... 1st Respondent /
Writ Petitioner
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration
50, Sankara Naidu Street
Thirupathirirpuliyur
Cuddalore 607 002.
3.The District Registrar [Admin]
District Registrar Office
Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
4.The Sub Registrar
O.o.The Sub Registrar,
Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District.
5.Sellan
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2345/2024
6.Vedathal
7.Vijaya
8Mariya Pillai
9.Shanmugam
10.Valarmathi ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 13.06.2024 in WP.No.11221/2024.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Gopinath
For Respondents : Mr.P.Harish,GA for RR2 to 4
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
(1)The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 13.06.2024 in WP.No.11221/2024.
(2)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as
follows:
(3)The appellant purchased the property which is the subject matter of this
appeal for a valid consideration by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated
10.06.1996 registered on the file of the 4th respondent herein. It is the
case of the appellant that the revenue records also stood mutated in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
name of the appellant. It is the further case of the appellant that nearly
after fourteen years, the very same vendor, who had sold the property to
the appellant herein earlier, had executed another sale deed dated
21.10.2010 which is also registered as Doc.No.5060/2010 to the husband
of the 1st respondent herein / writ petitioner. After coming to know about
the subsequent sale deed, the appellant gave a representation to cancel the
fraudulent registration of the sale deed dated 21.10.2010 to the 3 rd
respondent herein. The 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry and passed
an order, not to make any further registration pursuant to the subsequent
sale deed. However, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner preferred an appeal
before the 2nd respondent and the same was also rejected. Thereafter, the
1st respondent herein filed a writ petition in WP.No.11221/2024 on the
ground that the sale deed cannot be cancelled as the official respondents
have no power under Section 68[2] of the Registration Act.
(4)The learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the parties, allowed
the writ petition after holding that the power of Registrar under Section
68[2] of the Act is only a power of superintendence and that the Circular
does not give the power to the Registrar to cancel registered sale deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
following the judgment of this Court in G.Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector
General of Registration and Others in WP.No.29706/2024 order dated
16.04.2024.
(5)The grievance of the appellant is that though he was a party to the writ
petition, no notice was issued to him.
(6)The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is put
to serious prejudice in view of the void sale that has been registered by the
Sub Registrar.
(7)This Court has time and again reiterated the principle that the
Registration Act is not a substantive law. The Act does not authorise the
Registering Officer to deal with transactions.
(8)Very recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Kathirvel
Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Others
[WP.No.10291/2022 etc., batch order dated 02.08.2024], struck down
Section 77-A of the Registration Act which empowers District Registrar to
cancel the document if the registration is in contravention of Section 22-A
and Section 22-B of the Registration Act. This Court has also held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 68 of Registration Act cannot come to the aid of Registrar to
cancel the registration of document.
(9)A Division Bench of this Court in K.Panchapagesa Ayyar Vs.
K.Kalyanasundaram Ayyar [AIR 1957 Mad 472], has held as follows:-
''25. The Indian Registration Act unlike the
Transfer of Property Act strikes only at documents'
and not at transactions. As the Privy Council has
pointed in M.E. Moolla & Sons Ltd. v. Officid
Assignee, Rangoon, ILR 14 Rang 400 : (AIR 1936 PC
230) (C), “the provisions of the Registration Act by
themselves would not operate to render invalid a mere
oral sale.” In the same way the Indian Registration
Act does not require that a transaction affecting
immovable properties should be carried out by a
registered instrument. ''
(10)Merely because the document is registered, it does not confer title in
favour of the purchaser. Unless the vendor who conveyed title of the
property under the document is the real owner, the title or ownership over
the land is not affected by registration of documents. That being the legal
position, this Court is unable to entertain this appeal as against the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the learned Single Judge who has only expressed the legal position in
precision which is in tune with the settled principles of law, particularly,
the recent judgment of this WP.No.10291/2022 etc batch [cited supra].
(11)Even though it is stated that the appellant is not heard by the learned
Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, we are not going into
the question. However, it is made clear that the appellant's title if it is
vested with appellants by the previous sae is not affected by the order
passed in the writ petition or in this appeal.
(12)Hence, the writ appeal stands dismissed. It is open to the appellant to
challenge the sale deed if it is so advised, before the Civil Court under
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
06.08.2024
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration
50, Sankara Naidu Street
Thirupathirirpuliyur
Cuddalore 607 002.
2.The District Registrar [Admin]
District Registrar Office
Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
3.The Sub Registrar
O.o.The Sub Registrar,
Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
AP
06.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
