Madras High Court
J.Prithviraj vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 5 February, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.3740 of 2025
J.Prithviraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Salem.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Valappadi. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3rd respondent to register the
pending sale deed in P/Valappadi/27/2024 dated 15.11.2024 and release the same
to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balasubramaniam
For Respondents : Mr.Abishekmurthy
Government Advocate
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the
3rd respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 15.11.2024 which is kept as a
pending document in P.No.27/2024.
2.Heard Mr.S.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr.Abishekmurthy, learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondents.
3.The 3rd respondent has kept the Sale Deed as pending document only
based on the objection raised by the rival claimants to the effect that a suit is
pending before the competent Civil Court. After receiving such objections, the 3rd
respondent has not issued any refusal slip and he has kept the document as a
pending document
4.In the considered view of this Court, the 3rd respondent cannot keep the
document pending based on some objections made to the effect that a suit is
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pending. Such objection by itself is not a ground to keep the registration pending.
The law on this issue was explained by this Court in A.Abdullasa vs. Inspector
General of Registration, Inspector General Office, No.120, Santhome High
Road, Chennai – 600 026 reported in 2021 2 CWC 451 and the relevant portions
are extracted hereunder:
4. This Court has repeatedly held in several cases that
registration of documents cannot be refused by Registrar unless the
situation warrants as contemplated under Sections 71 & 72 of the
Registration Act or under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
Though the Registrar under the Registration Act is empowered to
conduct enquiry with regard to identity of person executing a
document/instrument as contemplated under Section 33 of
Registration Act read with Rule 55 of the Rules framed under
Registration Act, the Registrar cannot refuse to register the
document on the basis of objections raised by a rival Claimant,
who has different source of title. If the Petitioner satisfies the
Registrar as to what is required in law to register the document, the
Registrar shall not dwell upon the issues, which are not within the
scope of Registration Act or within his power. It is also to be noted
that the documents presented by the Petitioners in these cases were
executed on 27.4.2018. As a matter of fact, the Petitioners are
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
subsequent purchasers. The dispute appears to be between the
persons claiming under Govinda Konar on the basis of Will alleged
to be executed by Govinda Konar and the children of Govinda
Konar, who are entitled to get the property by succession. The
document that was executed by the children of Govindan earlier on
24.3.2011 and 26.3.2012 were accepted for registration without
any query/or objection. The Petitioners have purchased the
property from the persons, who have purchased the property from
the heirs of Thiru, Govinda Konar. It is not appropriate to doubt
the bona fides of the transaction after allowing the previous
documents to be registered in the manner known to law.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Sixth Respondent
in W.P. No.15663 of 2018 submitted that a Suit is pending and that
therefore there cannot be a direction to the Sub-Registrar to
register the document. Having regard to the reasons stated above to
set aside the order of Sub-Registrar namely the Third Respondent,
the contention of the Petitioners cannot be countenanced. The
disputed question of title cannot be allowed to be decided by the
Registration Authority exercising its power or jurisdiction under
the Registration Act. As pointed out by this Court in several
Judgments the impugned Order of refusal to register the document
cannot be justified. Therefore the Writ Petitions are allowed.
Impugned Order passed by the Third Respondent is set aside and
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Third Respondent is directed to register the Sale Deed and
release the Sale Deed presented on 27.4.2018 or to be presented
pursuant to their order within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.In view of the above, if the document is kept pending only on the ground
of objections made that a suit is pending, that will no bar for the 3 rd respondent to
registering the document, if it is otherwise in order. If there is no restraint order
passed by a competent Court, the 3rd respondent cannot keep the document as a
pending document.
6.In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to
register the pending document in P.No.27/2024, if it is otherwise in order.
7.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs.
05.02.2025
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssr
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Salem.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Valappadi.
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
