Madras High Court
V.K.Amalraj vs Inspector General (Registrations) on 2 February, 2011
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 02/02/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition (MD)No.10543 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 V.K.Amalraj ... Petitioner vs. 1.Inspector General (Registrations), The Appellate Authority, Government of Tamil Nadu, 120, Santhome High Road, Chennai. 2.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George, Chennai. 3.The Sub Registrar, Kalaiyar Kovil, Sivagangai District, 4.Arul 5.John Brito (R4 and R5 impleaded as per order dated 19.01.2010 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009 in W.P.(MD)No.10543/2009) ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take all necessary preventive measures to stop forthwith all unlawful registration through out the State of Tamil Nadu by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.10.2009. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.K.Amalraj, Party in Person. ^For Respondents 1-3 ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Special Government Pleader. For Respondents 4 and 5 ... Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai :ORDER
R.SUBBIAH,J This writ petition is filed by the petitioner as a public interest litigation to issue a writ of mandamus, for a direction to the first respondent to take all necessary preventive measures to stop forthwith all unlawful registration through out the State of Tamil Nadu by considering his representation dated 09.10.2009.
2.The main grievance of the petitioner is that without verifying the right of the ownership and other records the registering authorities registered documents which had caused great prejudice to the petitioner. Hence he lodged a complaint to the Inspector General of Registration, the first respondent herein on 29.07.2006 for which a reply from 1st respondent, dated 18.08.2006 was received stating that the registration department cannot stop accepting any document presented for registration unless there is a specific stay from the Courts. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier.
3.The circumstances which made the petitioner to approach this Court for filing the present writ petition is evident from the application filed by the respondents 4 and 5 who are none other than the brothers of the petitioner to implead themselves as party respondents to the writ petition. It is stated that their parents left behind four sons and two daughters and during the life time of their father, he founded a Trust known as "Gomathi Trust" and he had purchased certain properties in the name of the said trust. After the demise of their father, the properties were partitioned orally among themselves and they are in enjoyment of their respective shares.
4.In the said situation, the writ petitioner started to send false complaints against them disputing their rights over the property left by their father. Further, the respondents 4 and 5 had also come to know that the writ petitioner had made an application before the Tahsildar, Sivagangai to effect transfer of patta for all the properties in his name claiming that their father executed a will on 08.02.2002 bequeathing entire property in his name. But on a perusal of a copy of the will, the respondents 4 and 5 came to know that the writ petitioner had created the said will by forging the signature of their father. When the same was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar rejected the said application for transfer of patta submitted by the writ petitioner.
5.That apart a compliant was also lodged by the respondents 4 and 5 as against the writ petitioner for the alleged forgery. The writ petitioner is now attempting to settle his private dispute by abusing the process of court.
6.Though the application filed by the respondents 4 and 5 was vehemently opposed by the writ petitioner by filing elaborate counter, this Court has allowed the application for impleading by order dated 19.01.2010.
7.Opposing the prayer of the writ petitioner, the official respondents have also filed their counter affidavit stating that the Registrars and Sub Registrars are appointed by the State Government by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Registration Act 1908. The powers and duties of the Registrars and Sub Registrars are enumerated under Sections 34 to 38, 52,55,57,58,59,60,61,63, 63,64,65,66,68,70,72,73,74,75 and 83 of the Act.
8.The power of the Registrar/Sub Registrar, while examining a document presented for registration, is spelt out under Sections 34 and 52 of the Act. The Registering Officer can only examine the document presented for registration under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the rules framed thereunder. Particularly, Rule 55 speaks about what is not the duty of the Registering officer. Hence, by covering all the legal position, the petitioner cannot expect the Registering Officer to examine the fact whether the seller of the property in any sale deed is a rightful and lawful owner. The Registering Officer can initiate action only under Section 83 of the Act and by invoking Section 82 of the Act for offences like false personation alone and examining of ownership of the seller is beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the Registering Officer.
9.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record.
10.It is the main grievance of the petitioner that registering authorities are indiscriminately registering the documents without making proper enquiry with regard to the rights and ownership of the seller. Therefore, Mandamus has to be issued to the respondents to stop all unlawful registration through out the State of Tamil Nadu by considering his representation, dated 09.10.2009. According to the respondents 1 to 3, the Registering Officer is expected to enquire into the document brought before him and he can make enquiry only within the frame of provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly with reference to Rule 55 relating to enquiry before the registration speaks about what is not the duty of the Registering Officer. Rule 55 is extracted hereunder:
"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 no 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".
11.A close reading of the said Rule would show the registering authority is bound to consider the objection only on the ground which is stated in the said Rule. Rule 55 does not provide enquiry by the Registering Officer with regard to the right and ownership of the seller. Thus, the authorities concerned are bound to act only in accordance with the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The authorities cannot be directed to act contrary to the provisions of the statute. We also find that the writ petition is filed only to settle the family dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5. Hence, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.
12.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
sms To
1.Inspector General (Registrations), The Appellate Authority, Government of Tamil Nadu, 120, Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George, Chennai.
3.The Sub Registrar, Kalaiyar Kovil, Sivagangai District,