Madras High Court
M.G.Singaravel vs The Inspector General Of Registrar on 17 September, 2018
Author: V.Parthiban
Bench: V.Parthiban
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.09.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.(MD) Nos.SR87082 of 2018
& SR87085 of 2018
M.G.Singaravel ... Petitioner in both
W.Ps.
vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registrar
O/o.The Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Foreshore Estate, Chennai-600 028
2.The District Registrar
District Registrar Office
Trichy District
3.The Sub-Registrar
Sub Registrara Office
K.Sathanur, Trichy
4.M.G.Selvam
5.S.Kannadasan ... R1 to R5 in both
W.Ps.
6.Abdul Azeez ... R6 in W.P.(MD)
No.
SR87082 of 2018
7.Minor R.Harshvardhan ... R6 in W.P.(MD) No.
rep.by his father & guardian R.Ravi SR87085 of 2018
PRAYER (W.P.(MD) No.SR87082 of 2018): Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus
calling for the records relating to the registration of sale deed dated
07.03.2018 registered as document Nos.976 and 977 of 2018 by the 3rd
respondent executed between the respondents 4 and 6 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry either in
terms of the protest petition No.41 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016 registered by
the 3rd respondent or the notice dated 24.10.2016 issued to the respondents 1
and 2 or under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act or under Rule 55(b) of
the Registration Rules to prosecute the respondents 3, 4 and 6 under Section
82 and 83 of the Registration Act.
PRAYER (W.P.(MD) No.SR87085 of 2018): Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus
calling for the records relating to the registration of sale deed dated
04.05.2018 registered as document No.1841 of 2018 by the 3rd respondent
executed between the respondents 4 and 6 and quash the same and consequently
direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry either in terms of the
protest petition No.41 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016 registered by the 3rd
respondent or the notice dated 24.10.2016 issued to the respondents 1 and 2
or under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act or under Rule 55(b) of the
Registration Rules to prosecute the respondents 3, 4 and 6 under Section 82
and 83 of the Registration Act.
!For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu
(in both W.Ps.) for Mr.P.Arun Jayatram
For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi
(in both W.Ps.) Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.M.Murugan
Government Advocate (Civil Side) for R1 to R3
:COMMON ORDER
In both the writ petitions the Registry has raised objections to the maintainability on the ground that what is sought to be challenged is the registration of the sale deeds by the third respondent with consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Act?).
2. The Registry has raised objections as to how the writ petitions are maintainable seeking to quash the sale deeds executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petitions. The objections of the Registry are placed before this Court for consideration.
3. Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the maintainability note put up by the Registry is unsustainable in law, since such writ petitions can be maintained in view of the law laid down by this Court in G.D.Subramaniam v. Sub Registrar, reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 644 and Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2014 (4) CTC 627.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, issued by the Inspector General of Registration, it is well within the power of the Authority to annul the registration of document, in case there was a fraud played by the parties concerned. He would draw the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by this Court in Ramasamy's case (cited supra), wherein the learned Judge of this Court, after examining the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, held that the power to annul the document is already available to the Authority concerned under the Act and therefore, the Circular No.67 was in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that if the Authority has powers to annul the document on certain grounds, this Court can quash the sale deed, if the Court is being convinced with the fraud played by the parties concerned.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely on an yet another decision of this Court rendered in G.D.Subramaniam's case (cited supra), which is the case, where there was a cancellation deed without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner therein. Such unilateral cancellation was found to be illegal. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the above decision is not an answer to the maintainability issue raised by the Registry in the present case.
6. When the matter is being heard, the learned Additional Advocate General, who on notice appeared, would submit that first of all the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011 has been withdrawn subsequently on 20.10.2017. On the said date, a Circular has been issued by the Registration Department superseding the other Circulars, including Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011. He would draw the attention of this Court to the basis of issuing the Circular, dated 20.10.2017, with reference to the latest decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India rendered in Civil Appeal No.6673 of 2014. The relevant portion of the said decision is also extracted in the Circular dated 20.10.2017 as under:
?There is no express provision in the Act of 1908 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 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 officers 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. As aforementioned, some irregularity in the procedure committed during the registration process would not lead to a fraudulent execution and registration of the document, but a case of mere irregularity. In either case, the party aggrieved by such registration of document is free to challenge its validity before the Civil Court.
At the same time, once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document. The aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document before the Civil Court.?
7. The learned Additional Advocate General would, therefore, submit that it is no more open to the petitioner herein to rely upon the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011 and in any case, it is not well within the power of the Authority concerned under the provisions of the Act to cancel the document already registered. In case the party is aggrieved by the fraudulent registration of document, it is open to him / her to approach the competent Civil Court to have the document declared as null and void.
8. In view of the above clear ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court, as extracted above, and also the latest Circular, dated 20.10.2017, this Court has no other option except to hold that the maintainability issue raised by the Registry has to be sustained. Therefore, this Court holds that the writ petitions seeking to quash the respective sale deeds in the writ petitions are not maintainable in law and such a prayer cannot be brought within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. However, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Registering Authority under certain provisions of the Act i.e. Sections 68(2), 82 and 83 of the Act read with Rule 55(b) of the Registration Rules, seeking action for the fraudulent registration against the persons concerned. However, it is not open to the petitioner to seek quashment of the sale deeds registered and it is upto the petitioner to workout his remedies before the competent Civil Court in the manner known to law.
10. Therefore, for all the above, the objections put forth by the Registry are accepted and consequently, the objections made to the same by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rejected.
11. In the result, W.P.(MD) Nos.SR87082 & SR87085 of 2018 are rejected.
To:
1.The Inspector General of Registrar, O/o.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Chennai-600 028.
2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Trichy District.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, K.Sathanur, Trichy.
.