P.Baskaran vs The District Registrar (Admin)
2024 Latest Caselaw 17820 Mad

Madras High Court

P.Baskaran vs The District Registrar (Admin) on 9 September, 2024

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N.Sathish Kumar

                                                                               W.P(MD).No.25308 of 2023




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 09.09.2024

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                             W.P(MD).No.25308 of 2023
                                                       and
                                       W.M.P(MD).No.21497 of 2023 and 9 of 2024


                P.Baskaran                                                   ... Petitioner
                                                        Vs.,

                1.The District Registrar (Admin)
                  Office of the District Registrar,
                  1A, Tirupattur Road, Saivagangai Town.

                2.The Sub Collector,
                  Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

                3.V.Navanathan                                              ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
                Writ of Mandamus to forbear the first respondent from conducting enquiry in his
                proceedings Na.Ka.No.1253/E1/2023 dated 21.07.2023 based on the complaint
                given by the third respondent requesting the first respondent to cancel the sale
                deed in favour of the petitioner dated 08.10.2021 under Document No.4772/2021
                in respect of the property bearing S.No.522/5C, measuring 0.2.00 ares and in
                S.No.522/5B measuring 0.6.00 ares situated at Nenmeni Village, Paramakudi
                Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

                1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     W.P(MD).No.25308 of 2023




                                          For Petitioner      : Ms.M.D.Devi Saravana Priya

                                          For Respondents     : Mr.M.Siddharthan (for R1 & R2)
                                                                Additional Government Pleader
                                                                Mr.G.Balaji (for R3)



                                                           ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of mandamus to

forbear the first respondent from conducting enquiry in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.

1253/E1/2023 dated 21.07.2023 based on the complaint given by the third

respondent requesting the first respondent to cancel the sale deed in favour of the

petitioner dated 08.10.2021 under Document No.4772/2021 in respect of the

property bearing S.No.522/5C, measuring 0.2.00 ares and in S.No.522/5B

measuring 0.6.00 ares situated at Nenmeni Village, Paramakudi Taluk,

Ramanathapuram District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the subject property in

S.No.522/5C1 and S.No.522/5B situated at Nenmeni Village, Paramakudi Taluk,

Ramanathapuram, from one Ramakrishnan and his legal heirs vide sale deed dated

08.10.2021 in Doc.No.4772/2021. The said Ramakrishnan derived titled for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

land in S.No.522/5 vide proceedings dated 27.03.1969 of the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti

and joint patta was issued in favour of five persons, namely, Thinnarammal,

Karuppaiah Thevar, Ramakrishnan, Karuppiah Konar and Gopalier and they are

entitled equally the said land. After verifying all the documents, the petitioner

purchased the land from the Ramakrishnan. While that being so, the third

respondent created forged document stating that he purchased 81 cents out of total

extent 90 cents in S.No.522/5 from one Balu Thevar, who is the legal heir of one

Thinnarammal. It is the grievance of the petitioner that as per the proceedings of

the Tahsildar, five persons are equally entitled to their 1/5 share in S.No.522/5 and

as such, each of them is entitled to 22 ½ cents only in S.No.522/5. But, the third

respondent fraudulently created document as if Thinnarammal's legal heirs entitled

to 81 cents out of total extent 90 cents in S/No.522/5. Thereafter, he made a false

complaint before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the sale deed

executed in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the said document is forged

one. Based on the same, the first respondent issued enquiry notice vide

proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1253/E1/2023, dated 21.07.2023. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner is before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. 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 transactions.

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 also is

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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.”

4. Whether the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is valid in

the eye of law, is a matter of evidence to be decided only by the competent Civil

Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. In view of the above, this Court forbears the first respondent from

conducting enquiry in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1253/E1/2023, dated 21.07.2023

based on the complaint given by the third respondent. Accordingly, the Writ

Petition is allowed. The parties shall work out their remedy before the competent

Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

                                                                                         09.09.2024
                NCC               : Yes/No
                Index             : Yes/No
                Rmk




                To

                1.The District Registrar (Admin)
                  Office of the District Registrar,
                  1A, Tirupattur Road, Saivagangai Town.

                2.The Sub Collector,
                  Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



                                    N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.

                                                            Rmk









                                                   09.09.2024





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis