(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The Writ Petitioners are in appeal against the dismissal of the Writ
Petitions filed by them by order dated 07.02.2020, wherein they had challenged
the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the District Registrar (Admin IC) (in
short, R2) seeking a consequential direction to R1 to R3, being the Inspector
General of Registration, District Registrar (Admin IC) and Joint Sub-Registrar
II to register documents bearing Nos.P127 and P128 of 2013 (in short, sale
deeds in question) that had been kept pending registration.
2. The parties are referred to by their array in these appeals, which
remains the same as in the Writ Petitions. One T.Subramaniam was running two
spinning mills in Tiruppur. His wife Nallammal/R4 and son
Madhiyazhagan/R5 were initially Directors in the company that was running
the spinning mill. His son fell out with the father and stepped out of
3. Suffice it to say that the relationship was not cordial between the father
and son. R5 would allege that his father had been alienating properties
belonging to the company and engaging in transactions that were contrary to
law. The company in which the family members had been Directors, by name
M/s.Nallam Maniam Textile (P) Limited (in short, company), had availed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
financial facilities from Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Coimbatore (in short,
4. The Directors had offered personal properties as collateral, to secure
the loans. Since the documents which the appellants seek registration of, relate
to the same property in respect of which title deeds were deposited with the
DRT, the Schedule becomes a necessary detail, and has been recorded in this
Tamilnadu, Tirupur District, Tirupur Registration District,
Tirupur –II Joint Sub Registrar (Previously) Palladam Taluk,
Now Tirupur Taluk. All that piece and parcel of immovable
property being property S.F.No.459 extent P.A.:2 Acres 55 cents
along with common area and facilities attributable thereto which
area includes right of Pathway and other Easement Right in 15,
Velampalayam village, Electric Service 179-00-49 esiding
S.C.No.601, Tariff No:4, Sanction Load 7.5 HP dated 07.03.2003,
Two Bore wells.
Tamilnadu, Tirupur District, Tirupur Registration District,
Tirupur –II Joint Sub Registrar (Previously) Palladam Taluk,
Now Tirupur Taluk. All that piece and parcel of immovable
property situated at 15, Vellampalayam Village, E.B. Colony,
Samundipuram S.F.No.461/6 extent P.A.:-0.09 ½ cents along with
common areas and facilities attributable thereto which area
includes right of Pathway and other Easement Right in 15,
Velampalayam village
East of Rukmani’s Land
West of Rukmani’s Land
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
North of Rukmani’s Land
(in short, property/property in question).
5. There were defaults leading to action being taken by the Bank under
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, Sarfaesi Act) to recover
the outstandings. Original Applications were filed before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal (DRT) and the title deeds of the property that had been offered as
collateral, had been deposited with the DRT.
6. T.Subramaniam passed away on 01.03.2014. Prior to his demise, he
appears to have executed sale deeds in favour of the appellants in respect of the
schedule properties. When the documents were presented for registration, the
authorities of the Registration Department refused registration.
7. The Joint Sub-Registrar II passed an order on 18.09.2019 in Refusal
Order No.3 of 2015 citing Rule 162A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules,
1983 (in short, Rules) and Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act, 1908
(in short, Act) which provides for an appeal to the appellate authority.
8. In the reasons for refusal of registration, R3 states that neither the
original title documents nor the order passed by the Civil Court lifting the
attachment on the property were produced before him. Being of the view that
registration of a deed which is under attachment of the Court was opposed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
general law, he refuses registration under Rule 162A of the Rules.
9. The appellants availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal before
the District Registrar which came to be rejected, affirming order dated
18.09.2015. The appellate order is dated 01.12.2015. Before the Writ Court,
the appellants had maintained that the authorities of the Registration
Department have exceeded their powers in passing the impugned order.
10. The appellants argued that even if there were to be a subsisting
mortgage, that was not an impediment for registration of the sale deeds. They
had also argued that neither the Registration Act nor Rules endowed the
registering authorities to ask for title documents and hence the refusal to
register was bad on all counts.
11. According to the appellants, a police complaint had been filed stating
the title documents had been lost, in response to which Non-traceable
Certificate (NTC) had been issued by the police authorities upon due
verification. The arguments of the respondents were to the effect that non-
production of the original title deeds was not on account of they having been
lost but since they had been held in security by the Bank in respect of the loans
advanced to the father of R5.
12. Since the loan had been declared as a Non-performing Asset (NPA),
the same had been assigned to the Asset Reconstruction Company India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
Limited (ARCIL), that had been impleaded as R6 and continues in that array in
these appeals. Hence the documents were being held by DRT as noted in the
refusal order itself. By way of defence, the respondents had relied upon a
Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration on 25.04.2012.
13. The case of the private respondents was that the NTC was obtained
by the appellants from the concerned police authorities fraudulently and the
Sub-Inspector who had issued the same was under suspension. Disciplinary
proceedings had been initiated qua the concerned officer. R5 had also initiated
both civil as well as criminal action, both against R4, his mother, and his father.
Incidentally, his father T.Subramaniam had passed away on 01.03.2014.
14. The Writ Petitions ultimately came to be dismissed on 07.02.2020,
the Writ Court holding that having regard to the facts brought to light in the
course of hearing, considering the grant of the relief sought, would be putting a
premium on the fraud committed by the appellants. Reliance of the appellants
upon the decision in Lakshmi Ammal V. Sub-Registrar, Villivakkam and
another1was found to be misplaced. It is as against that order that the Writ
Petitioners are in appeals.
15. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Eswar
Kumar, learned counsel on record for the appellants reiterates the submissions
made before the Writ Court. We are taken to some provisions of the Act and the
12015 SCC Online 5868
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
Rules, namely, Section 47 of the Act and Rules 55 and 162A. He would
attempt to divest the legal issue from the surrounding facts, proceeding on the
basis that the Court should decide the Writ Appeals purely as a legal issue.
According to him, the impugned order is nothing but an excess of jurisdiction
and stands vitiated on this one score.
16. He would rely on the following decisions:
(i) Balkrishnan Gupta and Others v Swadeshi Polytex ltd and another2
(ii) Opto Circuit India Limited v Axis Bank and Others3
(iii) Mohinder Singh Gill and another v The Chief Election Commissioner, New
Delhi and others4
(iv) Om Prakash (Dead) through his legal representatives v Shanti Devi and
others5
(v) Gurbax Singh v Kartar Singh and others6
(vi) M.Kathirvel v The Inspector General of Registration7
(vii) SabapathiPalanisamy and another v The Sub Registrar, Avinashi, Tirupur
District and another8
(viii) Premkumar Mishra &Anr v V.KanjiRavaria& Kanji &anr9
(ix) P.Pappu v The Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram, Namakka District10
(x) M.Ariyanatchi&Anr v The Inspector General of Registration &Anr11
(xi) The Sub Registrar v Federal Bank Ltd &Anr12
(xii) Federal Bank v The Sub Registrar and another13
(xiii) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v S.P.Velayutham&
Others14
2(1985) 2 SCC 167
3 (2021) 6 SCC 707
4 (1978) 1 SCC 405
5 (2015) 4 SCC 601
6 (2002) 2 SCC 611
7 (2024) 2 CTC 769
9(2024) 7 SCC 2295
10W.A.No.1160 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024 (DB MHC)
11WA(MD) No. 856 of 2023 dated 27.06.2023 (DB MHC)
12W.A.No. 1303 of 2023 dated 08.01.2025 (DB MHC)
14(2022)8 SCC 210
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
(xiv) Narayan DeoraoJavle (Deceased) through legal rep. V Krishna &Anr15
(xv) Prabakaran and anr v V.M.Azhagiri Pillai (dead) by LRS &ors16
(xv) K.S.Vijayendran v Inspector General of Registration17
(xv) Nachiyappan v Periyakaruppan18
(xvi) S.Thara Bai v The Inspector General of Registration and another19
(xvii) K.Subramaniyan v The Sub Registrar20
(xviii) Dr.Abilasha v District Registrar (Admn) &Anr21
17. According to him, Rule 55 has adversely commented upon in the
above judgments and hence the action of the registering authorities in insisting
on production of the original documents cannot be countenanced. The power of
refusal to register is restricted to the situations enumerated under Rule 162A of
the Rules. Nowhere therein is it contemplated that the officer can venture into
an examination of the original deed or records specified in that document.
18. It is only vide G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 05.09.2022 that sub-Rule (xx)
was brought into Rule 162 providing for such examination and it is that Rule
that has been adversely commented upon by this Court in the above judgments.
Hence, the impugned order suffers from an excess of jurisdiction.
19. That apart, nowhere is a second mortgage barred under law and the
settled position of law as per the above judgments would also support the
position that a sale deed may be executed subject to a subsisting encumbrance,
15(2021) 17 SCC 626
16(2006) 4 SCC 484
172011 2 LW 648
18SA(MD) No. 520 of 2017 dated 20.11.2020
19W.P.No. 5716 of 2022 dated 18.03.2022
20W.P.No. 18848 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024
21W.P.No. 7947 of 2018 dated 22.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
including mortgage. To a pointed question as to whether the sale deeds in
question contain any such indication of a subsisting mortgage, the answer is in
the negative, evidently for the reason that there is no such disclosure.
20. We had also sought a query as to whether any legal action has been
taken as against their vendor T.Subramaniam, to which also, the answer is in
the negative. As already recorded, the appellants have preferred to, and insisted
upon proceeding purely on the legal issue of assumption of jurisdiction by the
official respondents, eschewing all factual details surrounding the execution of
the sale deeds.
21. Stiff resistance is put up by the respondents. The official respondents
are represented by Mr.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate and
the private respondents are represented by Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned
Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Roshan, learned counsel for R7, legal heir of R4 who
had passed away on 07.08.2020, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Thangavel, learned counsel for R5 and Mr.Chetan Sagar, learned counsel
for R6. R7 was impleaded on 24.08.2021 and is the sister of R5.
22. In one voice, R5 and R7 submit that the matter is not as simple as
projected by the appellants. T.Subramaniam does appear to have executed the
documents in question. However, such execution was under coercion to get
over the pressure exerted by the appellants for recovery of money. They draw
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
attention to a money suit filed by the appellants against T.Subramaniam for the
outstandings in respect of the cotton supplied allegedly by them to the
company.
23. In that suit, though an order of attachment had been initially obtained
by the appellants, ultimately, the suit had been decreed by way of a
compromise. They also draw attention to several documents that, according to
them, constitute forged and manipulated documents, as well as a NTC obtained
from the police fraudulently.
24. According to them, a complaint (complaint I) had been made by
T.Subramaniam in respect of the loss of his driving licence and car Registration
Certificate. In a move to obtain an NTC at any cost, another complaint
(complaint II) had been filed on the same date as complaint I, allegedly by the
appellants forging the signature of T.Subramaniam, complaining about the loss
of the two documents, that were in reality in the custody of the DRT.
25. Complaint I had not been pursued and the Sub-Inspector of Police
had been prevailed upon to issue an NTC that related to complaint I making it
appear that it related to complaint II. Before the registering authorities, the
documents had been annexed with a copy of the forged complaint II and the
NTC making it appear as though the original documents had been lost while. In
fact, it is admitted that the original documents were in possession of the DRT.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
26. Other documents purporting to be official Court documents issued by
the Civil Court at Raichur have been produced by the Respondents, which,
according to them, also establish fraud played by the Appellants. This would,
they argue, vitiate all proceedings, and the Writ Court has thus rightly,
proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
27. For their part, the respondents rely on the provisions of the Act and
Rules, being Section 2(5-A) defining ‘forged document’, Section 76 relating to
order of refusal by registration, Section 82 imposing penalty for illegal acts,
Section 83 for initiation of prosecution, Rule 55 touching upon forgery and
manipulation of documents and Rule 162A, touching upon registration of
documents opposed to public policy and morality.
28. On behalf of the State, learned Government Advocate would defend
vehemently the action of the registering authority pointing out that the statutory
provisions as well as the Rules relied upon by the respondents would come into
play in the present case.
29. We have heard all learned counsel and perused the material papers.
The affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions proceed on the basis that the
appellants are bonafide purchasers of the schedule properties. They state that
any sale in their favour will be subject to the mortgage in favour of the Bank.
30. The facts presented before the Court at the instance of the Appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
can, at best, be called sketchy. There is no disclosure in respect of various
critical factual particulars which were brought to the notice of the Court only by
virtue of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, particularly the private
respondents.
31. We would normally, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, prefer to restrain the remit of adjudication to legal
issues alone, eschewing disputed factual positions and traversing into the
factual domain to the bare minimum necessary, in order to set the context for an
appreciation of the legal issues. In doing so, we take cognizance of the position
that the law cannot be decided in a vacuum, but would have to be decided
having regard to relevant, undisputed materials and surrounding facts and
circumstances.
32. This case is no exception, and we have, in deciding the matter, taken
note of the trajectory of the events that have unfolded before us by way of the
pleadings and documents presented, all of which are admitted by the parties.
33. In our understanding, this is how the events have unfolded:
i. The companies were started in 2000.
ii. Loans were availed from Catholic Syrian Bank Limited,
Coimbatore and personal properties of T.Subramaniam, R4 and R5
were mortgaged as collateral security.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
iii. Title deeds of the property in question were deposited with the
Bank.
iv. On 03.04.2002, R5 resigned from Directorship of the companies
paving the way for his mother to become a Director.
v. The loan was declared as NPA and notice dated 29.10.2007 was
issued by the bank under Section 13(2) of the Sarfaesi Act.
vi. O.A.Nos.5 and 21 of 2008 were filed by the Bank before the DRT,
Coimbatore for recovery of the dues.
vii. The NPA was assigned to R6 – ARCIL on 14.03.2011.
viii. Thereafter and on a separate trail, R5 had availed a One Time
Settlement (OTS) after the demise of his father with ARCIL and
had negotiated a private sale of the schedule properties.
34. It is in this context and to a query posed by us, that the appellants
have referred to Section 47 of the Act. Section 47 says that a registered
document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to
operate, if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the
time of its registration.
35. Thus, according to the appellants, despite this private sale, once the
documents in question are registered, they would be valid documents from the
time of execution thereof, which is 13.12.2013. This argument is rendered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
unnecessary in light of the conclusion that we have ultimately arrived at.
36. With the private sale negotiated inter se R4, R5, ARCIL and the third
party (who is not before us), the curtains fall on the sale of the properties in
question and the closure of the loans qua R4 and R5 and the Bank. With this,
we move to an entirely different aspect of the matter. According to the
appellants, T.Subramaniam owed the brother of the second appellant monies for
supply of cotton. Hence, the brother of A2 filed O.S.No.207 of 2011 on the file
of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, Karnataka for recovery of
money. Another Suit was filed by the same person in O.S.No.208 of 2011
before the same Court, also for recovery of money.
37. Inter alia, IA II was filed in O.S.No.207 of 2011 seeking an order of
Attachment Before Judgment (ABJ) of the personal properties of the Directors.
Notice was issued on 14.12.2011 and the matter was listed on 10.01.2012.
Likewise, in I.A.No.I in O.S.No.208 of 2011. On 11.01.2012, it appears that
the defendants in the Suit, i.e., the company, had not objected for ABJ and
hence, both interim applications in O.S.Nos.207 and 208 of 2011 came to be
allowed and an order of ABJ was passed.
38. On 13.02.2012, the Suits were decreed in terms of the compromise
entered into between the parties. The order of attachment was forwarded
through bailiff and registered before the Dharapuram as well as Vellakoil Sub-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
Registrar offices on 27.07.2012.
39. While so, documents are now placed before us by R5, which assume
importance in the context of the allegation of fraud. The first document is
dated 31.12.2012 and is extracted below:
40. The above document is evidently a summon and several infirmities
are pointed out therein, such as, there being no discernible signature. The
second document, more important in our view, is purported to be a Court
document, which is extracted below:
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT RAICHUR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
Original Suit No: 208/2011 (in I.A.No:2/2013)
I.A.No : 1020/2013
Name of the Decree Holder : M/S.Shree Annapurna Trading Co.,
Cotton merchants, #12-10-55/1, Siyatalab,
Gunj Road, Raichur, a proprietorship concern
Through it's Proprietor Sri K.Mahaveer Jain,
Bhansali, S/o. Late Khemaraj Jain Bhansali, aged
About: 32 years, Oce :Business, R/o.RAichur
//VERSUS//
Name of the Judgement Debtors: M/s.Nallam Textiles (P) Ltd,
a company incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act, represented it's
a) Shri.T.Subramaniam, S/o.Thirumalai Swamy,
aged about 66 years, Managing Director
b) Mrs.Nallammal, W/o. T.Subramaniam,m aged about 61 years
c) Shri S.Madhiyazhagan, S/o. T.Subramaniam,
aged about 43 years both Directors & All R/o S.F.No: 406,
Earagam patti, Konarpatti (PO), Dharapuram (T.N)
Intimation to the Sub Register as per High Court's R.O.C.No: 3584/79 F.1 and No:
To
The Sub Register,
It is informed that the properties mentioned below in the schedule have been attached
on 10.01.2013 as per the orders passed in the above number dated 10.01.2013.
Therefore you are required to make necessary entries towards encumbrance in the
relevant register.
Therefore you are required to make necessary entries towards encumbrance in the
relevant register.
Schedule Property
Property attached on 10.01.2013
Attachment made absolute on 20.06.2013
Attachment raised on 10.12.2013
10.12.2013 in I.A.No:1017/2013 in (O.S.No:207/2011) in I.A.No:1/2013.
Schedule of items I to VII annexed to this document and not extracted in the interest of
brevity
(S/d)
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RA.....(not legible)'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
41. The list of dates highlighted in bold above assume importance. It
states therein that the schedule property was attached on 10.01.2013,
attachment was made absolute on 20.06.2013 and attachment was raised on
10.12.2013. These dates are clearly incorrect, as O.S.No.208 of 2011 has been
disposed on 13.02.2012 itself as per the compromise decree of that date. We
extract the compromise decree below:-
“The suit is coming on this the 13th day of February 2012 for
final disposal before Sri P.Srinivasa, B.A.L.,LL.M
Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Raichur in the presence of
Sri.Basavaraj Sakree, Advocate for the plaintiff and
Sri.Suresh Reddy Advocate for Defendant No.1(a) and
Defendant No.1(b-e) are placed exparte.
Suit is decreed in terms of compromise petition.
The compromise petition shall form part of the decree. No
costs.
Given under my hand and seal of the court, on this the 13 th
day of February,2012.
(Sd/-)
(P.Srinivasa)
Addl.Senior Civil Judge,
Raichur
42. The third unusual circumstance is in regard to the complaints
ostensibly filed by T.Subramaniam before the Police authorities. The complaint
containing signature of T.Subramaniam dated 18.12.2013 is extracted below:
',lk; :bts;snfhtpy;
njjp : 18/12/2013
cah;jpU fhty; Jiw bts;snfhtpy; epiya cjtp
Ma;thsh; mth;fSf;F
fh';fak; jhYf;fh. gr;rhgisak; fpuhkk;. bts;skil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
ey;yk; blf;!;ily;!; FoapUf;Fk; jpUkiyrhkp ft[z;lh; kfd;
T.Rg;gpukzpak; Mfpa ehd; bra;J bfhs;Sk; gpuhJ
Iah.
ehd; vdJ fk;bgdp rk;ke;jg;gl;l ,d;!;a{ud;!;
g[j;jf';fSk;. fhh; iyrd;!; g[j;jfKk;. VdJ iybrd;!%k;
cs;s g[j;jfKk; tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;a ,uz;L Set Xerox
vLj;Jtu ehd; bts;snfhtpYf;F fhhpy; te;J b$uhf;!;
mYtyfj;jpy; efy; vLj;Jtpl;L btspapy; epd;W
bfhz;oUe;njd;/ ic& rkaj;jpy; ,uz;Lk; Xerox mYtyfj;jpy;
Xerox vLj;jnghJ ifjtWjyhf fhzhky; ngha; tpl;lJ/
mYtyfk; kw;Wk; fhhpy; njoa[k; fpilf;ftpy;iy/ mJ vdf;F
mtrpakhdJ vd;gjhy; mjid rK:fk; fz;Lgpoj;J jf;f
eltof;if vLf;FkhWk; rhd;W tH';FkhWk;
nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/
xg;gk;-?
Mtz';fs; :
1/ TN 42 6318 rk;ke;jg;gl;l United India Insurance mry;
2/ D.L. Mry; vd; nghpy; cs;sJ/
43. On the same day, there is yet another complaint, as per which the
originals of the documents in question have been lost. The said complaint is
extracted below:
',lk; :bts;snfhtpy;
njjp : 18/12/2013
cah;jpU fhty; Jiw bts;snfhtpy; epiya cjtp
Ma;thsh; mth;fSf;F
fh';fak; (Tk) gr;rhgisak; fpuhkk;. f!;gh bts;skil
ey;yk; blf;!;ily;!; FoapUf;Fk; jpUkiyrhkp ft[z;lh; kfd;
T.Rg;gpukzpak; Mfpa ehd; bra;J bfhs;Sk; gpuhJ/
Iah.
ehd; vdJ fpiua gj;jpu';fshd Document No.5067/1990
kw;Wk; Document NO.2194/1985 kw;Wk; vdJ fk;bgdp rk;ke;jg;gl;l
,uz;L igy;fSk; ,uz;L ,d;!;a{ud;!; g[j;jf';fSk; vdJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
tHf;fwp"Uf;F tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;a mry; gj;jpuk; kw;Wk;
,uz;L Set Xerox vLj;Jtu ehd; bts;snfhtpYf;F fhhpy; te;J
Xerox mYtyfj;jpy; efy; vLj;Jtpl;L btspapy; epd;W
bfhz;oUe;njd;/ ic& rkaj;jpy; vdJ gj;jpu';fs; ,uz;Lk;
xerox mYtyfj;jpy; xerox vLj;jnghJ ifjtWjyhf fhzhky;
ngha;tpl;lJ/ mYtyfk; kw;Wk; fhhpy; njoa[k; fpilf;ftpy;iy/
mJ vdJ tHf;Ff;F mtrpakhdJ vd;gjhy; mjid rK:fk;
fz;Lgpof;f jf;f eltof;if vLf;f ntz;Lkha;
nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/
,g;gof;F
xg;gk;-?
Mtz';fs; :
1/ 5067/1990 vz; fpiuag;gj;jpuk;
2/ 2194/1985 vz; fpiuag;gj;jpuk;/
44. The signatures, allegedly of T.Subramaniam, on both complaints
dated 18.12.2004 are extracted below to illustrate the differences therein:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
45. Even to the naked eye, the signatures are palpably different. The
signature in complaint II appears to be in Tamil. It is inconclusive as to who
has filed these complaints and perhaps only T.Subramaniam and the appellants
could provide the answer to that question. The former is no more and no
explanation is forthcoming from the appellants on this score.
46. Moving forward, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellakoil Police
Station ostensibly issued a certificate on 20.12.2013, wherein he refers to the
complaint filed by T.Subramaniam. There is also no mention in the NTC about
what properties have been certified to be non-traceable and the certificate is
blissfully vague. We are, hence, none the wiser as to whether the NTC refers to
the licence and RC Book, or the documents. In the interests of completion, we
extract the NTC below:
bts;snfhtpy;
20/12/2013
fhty;Jiw rhd;W
fh';fak; jhY}f;fh. gr;rhghisak; fpuhkk;. bts;skilapy;
,Uf;Fk; jpUkiyrhkp ft[zl; h; kfd; T.Rg;gpukzpak; bfhLj;j g[fhh;
kDtpd; mog;gilapy; fhzhky; nghd Mtz';fs; Fwpj;J gy
,l';fspy; njog;ghh;j;Jk; bts;snfhtpy; fhty; epiya rufj;jpy;
njog;ghh;jJ
; k; Mtz';fs; fpilf;ftpy;iy/ nkw;go Mtz';fs;
njog;ghh;jJ ; y vd;gjw;F Not Traceable vd rhd;W
; fpilf;ftpyi
tH';fg;gLfpwJ/
sd/-
cjtp fhty; Ma;thsh;
bts;snfhtpy; fhty; epiyak;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
jpUg;g{h; khtl;lk;
47. Now for the clincher. When the documents were presented for
registration, they are accompanied by a copy of complaint II and the NTC,
making it look as though the documents were lost when they are actually with
the DRT. Whether it is T.Subramaniam or the appellants who can take credit
for this master plan is unclear, but the appellants, prima facie, are certainly in
collusion, at the very least.
48. The very fact that the writ affidavits are bereft of essential details and
even before us the attempt is only to skirt the details and redirect the Court to
the legal position, reinforces our impression that all is certainly not well in the
manner by which the Appellants have proceeded with the litigation.
49. Compilation dated 16.10.2023 filed by R5 contains 36 documents, all
of which have been supplied to the appellants. There has not been a whisper
about these allegations and documents either in the initial presentation of the
Writ Appeals or in reply by learned counsel. In all fairness, there should have
been some explanation on the part of the Appellants in regard to these
documents and the lack thereof is, in our view, a very serious lapse on their
part.
50. The Writ Court is absolutely right in the conclusion that it has arrived
at and rather generous in having dismissing the writ petitions simpliciter. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
has perhaps emboldened the Appellant to file the present appeals.
51. A private complaint had been lodged by R5 which had not been
registered by the authorities. Hence, Crl.O.P.No.9542 of 2015 had been filed by
him seeking registration of his complaint. That Crl.O.P. was closed permitting
R5 to lodge a written complaint narrating the facts to the Superintendent of
Police, CBCID within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of a copy of
that order.
52. A direction was issued to the Superintendent, CBCID to allot the
same to a competent investigating officer to conduct enquiry and take
appropriate action. That direction was given in view of the serious nature of
allegations made in the complaint touching upon manipulation and fabrication
of documents.
53. We are given to understand from the respondents that a final report
has been filed by the Inspector of Police, CBCID in Cr.No.3 of 2015 and the
same was taken on file as C.C.No.679 of 2023 which is pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur. Those proceedings will continue
uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
54. Even in law, we even find the case of the appellants entirely
misconceived. At the risk of repetition, we reiterate that the provisions of law
and Rules cannot be interpreted in a vacuum and they would have to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
understood in the context of the surrounding facts and circumstances. The
emphasis of the appellants has been on Rule 55A and the decisions rendered by
this Court commenting adversely thereupon. In fact, pending these writ appeals,
that Rule has been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court in Gopi V . The
Sub Registrar & Ors.22
55. In the present case, the applicable Rules are 55 and 162A that would,
in our considered view, buttress the case of the respondents in full. Both Rules
are extracted below:
Rule 55. It forms no part of a registering officer’s duty to
enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for
registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against
the registration of a document based on the ground that the
executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is
bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated
below:-
(a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him
are not the persons they profess to be;
(b) that the document is forged;
(c) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or
agent, has not right to appear in that capacity;
(d) that the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by
the party applying for registration; or
(e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a
lunatic.
Rule 162-A. No Registration Officer shall accept for
registration any document or service agreement evidencing bonded
labour or transaction constituting an offence under any law or
opposed to public policy or morality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
56. Rule 55 states that no registering officer would enquire into a validity
of the document brought to him for registration or attend to any protest against
the registration of such document, except in the situations adumbrated under
clauses (a) to (e) above. It is the condition in Clause (b) that applies in the
present case, that the documents in question are forged.
57. Prima facie, the document purporting to be a Court summons, where
the date of attachment, attachment being made absolute and lifting of
attachment are set out erroneously, and complaint II allegedly signed by
T.Subramaniam dated 18.12.2013 appear to be forged and fabricated. The
former contain dates which are incorrect on the basis of the Court records that
have been produced before us, and the latter contains discrepancies in
signatures, even to a casual observer. The latter document has been filed as an
annexure to the documents in question when presented for registration.
58. The registering authority was in receipt of a copy of the legal notice
issued by the counsel for R5 to ARCIL intimating them of the frantic efforts
being taken by T.Subramaniam in cohort with the appellants to register the
properties in question. It is on receipt of a copy of the legal notice marked to
him that the registering authority has caused enquiry. He has written to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
police authorities seeking a validation of NTC and the authorities have replied
that no such NTC was issued by the Sub-Inspector.
59. They have specifically averred that their registers did not contain any
such complaint relating to loss of documents in question. It was only pursuant
to that, that the concerned police officer has been suspended. The registering
authority has, in our view, rightly invoked the provisions of Rule 162A which
casts a responsibility upon the authority to desist from registering documents
that are contrary to public policy.
60. It is true that the power under Rule 55 and 162A are to be exercised
in a judicious fashion and within the four corners of the situations adumbrated
under Rule 55. R5 had approached the Public Information Officer in the office
of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Tirupur seeking the reason why the documents were
kept pending and the reply is that they have been kept pending for ascertaining
the genuineness of the police certificate submitted by the concerned parties in
respect of the documents.
61. In fact, on receipt of information from R5 in regard to the cloud over
the documents, the Sub-Registrar has made enquiries with the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Vellakoil Police Station and has received communication dated
30.01.2014 to the effect that there are no entries in the register in regard to any
complaint having been filed by T.Subramaniam to the Police Department as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
though the documents in question had been lost and seeking the issuance of a
non-traceable certificate. It is based on the enquiry caused in the Police Station
thereafter that the concerned police officer was also suspended.
62. If the above position does not constitute a breach of public policy, we
wonder what would. Hence, we have no hesitation in stating that this is an
appropriate case where power under Rule 55 read with Rule 162A has been
exercised, and appropriately so.
63. In this view that we have now taken, it becomes unnecessary to
advert to the cases cited by the Appellants and other submissions as we are of
the categoric view that the appellants have come to Court with unclean hands,
perpetrating such opacity and non-disclosure right from the stage of Writ
Petitions. It is a gross over simplification in the present circumstances for the
appellants to have projected the matter as though only a legal issue engages the
attention of the Court. In our opinion, this is nothing but an attempt to divert
from the documents on record, to which our attention has been drawn by the
other parties.
64. In fine, we unequivocally confirm the order of the Writ Court,
additionally putting the appellants to terms of Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
only) payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of
four (4) weeks from date of uploading of this order in the official website of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
this Court.
65. These Writ Appeals are dismissed with costs.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
Sl 16.04.2025
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Tirupur Registration District,
Tirupur District.
3.Office of Tirupur – II Joint Sub Registrar,
Tirupur Registration District,
Tirupur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
W.A.Nos.1293 and 1295 of 2021
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
sl
W.A.Nos. 1293 & 1295 of 2021
16.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 05:29:34 pm )
