Madras High Court
Kumaresan vs C.Govindan on 30 September, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.(MD)No.1702 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A.(MD)No.1702 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.13128 and 13129 of 2024
1.Kumaresan, S/o.Thangaiah Nadar
2.P.Sudha ... Appellants
-vs-
1.C.Govindan
2.The District Registrar,
Nagercoil Registration District,
Integrated District Registrar Office,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Eraniel,
Kaniyakumari District.
4.Mary Micheal Ammal, W/o.Joseph Raj ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1702 of 2024
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside
the order dated 07.08.2024, passed in W.P.(MD)No.17455 of 2021, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For R2 and R3 : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
There is no merit in this Writ Appeal.
2. The entire issue has arisen due to the callousness and
audaciousness exhibited by the Registration Department of the State Government.
A sale deed that was executed on 06.08.2004, was presented for registration, but
the Sub Registrar, Eraniel at Kanniyakumari District, kept it pending due to an
attachment of 7 cents out of 20 cents of the property.
3. The purchaser then approached the Civil Court for raising the
attachment, but, the petition came to be dismissed. An appeal was taken out
against the said order in C.M.A.No.28 of 2016 and the said appeal was allowed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 18.08.2017 and the disputed extent of 7 cents were conveyed in favour of the
first appellant. A challenge made to the said order in C.M.S.A.(MD)No.8 of 2018,
failed. Thereafter, when the document was sought to be registered, the same Sub
Registrar refused to register it, citing that the property had been dealt with
subsequently. The Writ Court relied on Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908,
which states that once a document is registered, it takes effect from the date of its
execution. Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, enables the Sub Registrar
to refuse registration on the ground that an attachment is in force. It was
introduced only with effect from 16.08.2022. Therefore, on the date when the
document was presented for registration, there was no such prohibition.
4. The substantive law regarding attachment, as outlined in the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not prohibit the sale of attached property. Section
64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with private alienation of property,
after it has been attached, and it reads as follows:-
''64. Private alienation of property after attachment to be
void.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(1) Where an attachment has been made, any private
transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein
and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other
monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims
enforceable under the attachment.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any private transfer
or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein, made in
pursuance of any contract for such transfer or delivery entered into and
registered before the attachment.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, claims
enforceable under an attachment include claims for the rateable
distribution of assets.''
5. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that a sale
pending attachment is void only against claims enforceable under that attachment.
If a person of normal mental capacity reads the provision, he / she will understand
that an attachment does not prohibit alienation. However, the Sub Registrar,
Eraniel, had chosen to read it as it contains prohibition on alienation at the time it
was presented. It is this improper action by the Sub Registrar in keeping the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
document pending that paved the way for the creation of further documents by the
person who sold the property. Indirectly, the Sub Registrar assisted the appellants
in committing fraud against the first respondent. The learned Single Judge has
taken note of the language in Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as
well as the language in Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 and has rightly
set aside the impugned order, and directed registration of the sale deed. We do
not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The
Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
NCC : No [R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
Index : No 30.09.2024
smn2
To:-
1.The District Registrar,
Nagercoil Registration District,
Integrated District Registrar Office,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Eraniel,
Kaniyakumari District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
smn2
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.13128 and 13129 of 2024
30.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
