Madras High Court
S.Dhanalakshmi vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 17 August, 2023
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023
S.Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Santhome Salai,
Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Madurai (South) District,
171, Aranmanai Salai,
Madurai.
3.The Joint Sub-Registrar (No.4),
Joint Sub-Registrar Office,
Madurai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the second respondent to conduct an inquiry, as per the provisions of
the Registration Act and first respondent Circulars on the
registration of document namely Doc.No.12171/2011, dated
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023
20.10.2011 which registered by the third respondent and consider
the petitioner's representation dated 29.03.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner's father one Sivanandi Thever has entered into an agreement with one Antony Raj for the purchase of a property in TS No.440/1 and 440/2 of Pasumpon Nagar, Madurai.
However, the agreement has not been effected. In this regard, a civil suit has been filed by this petitioner before the Sub Court, Madurai in O.S.No.731 of 2012 and the same is still pending. In the meantime, the said Antony Raj has executed a sale deed in respect of the subject property in favour of one Ravindran vide document No.12171/2011 and therefore this petitioner has submitted an application on 29.03.2023 before the Inspector General of Registration to conduct an enquiry and filed this writ petition for a Mandamus directing the second respondent to conduct the enquiry 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023 based on his representation dated 29.03.2023 within a stipulated time.
2.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v.
State of M.P., [(2016) 10 SCC 767] has held that that the power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter and in the absence of any express provision on that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Registering Officer would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Therefore, for cancellation of registered documents, the State of Tamil Nadu brought an amendment to the Registration Act, vide the Registration (Tamil Nadu Second Amendment) Act, 2021. By this amendment Act, Sections 22B, 77A, 77B, 81A and 81B were inserted in the Registration Act. Section 77A provides the power to the Registrar to cancel registered documents, if it is found to be in contravention of sections 22A and 22B.
3/9https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023
3.Whereas, this Court in S.M. Hajabakrutheen Vs. The Inspector General of Registration [W.P.(MD) Nos. 14546 of 2022 batch, dated 27.03.2023], in view of the conflicting views taken by two different benches of this Court regarding the applicability of Section 77A, has referred various issues for consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the reference order is extracted as follows-
“20. In view of the reasonings of the Full Bench and in view of the conflicting views of the two learned Single Judges the following issues are referred for due consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court.
i) whether the recitals in a document presented for registration, can be examined to determine that such document was fraudulently executed or registered;
ii) whether a document in which the recitals alone are questioned can be considered only as voidable which would normally necessitate the filing of the suit to set aside the particular document or whether even those documents can be cancelled by the Sub Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023 Act;
iii) whether exercise of power under Section 77A must be restricted to registration of documents in contravention to Section 22-A or 22-B of Registration Act, 1908 alone?
iv) whether the exercise of such power under Section 77A of the Registration Act can be prospective in nature or retrospective in nature?
21. To determine these issues, the Registry may place all the writ petitions before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge for constitution of a Larger Bench to examine the issues in detail.
22. Till a decision is rendered by the Larger Bench, let no further action be taken by any of the Sub Registrars, who may await further orders of the Larger Bench.”
4.By referring to the above order, this Court in A.Shanthi v. The District Registrar [WP.No.18814 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023] has reiterated that the District Registrars across Tamil Nadu shall not take any action on an application under Section 77A 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023 of the Registration Act, till the reference is answered by the Larger Bench. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:-
“4.In the light of the above order, there is no scope for considering the representation made by the petitioner at present and the petitioner has to necessarily await for the final orders to be passed by the Larger Bench on the issue. Hence, this writ petition is closed for the present.
5.It is brought to the notice of this Court that in spite of the above order passed by this Court, the District Registrars are entertaining the applications under Section 77A of the Registration Act and even orders are passed. It is not known as to whether this order was circulated to all the District Registrars in State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the above order, this Court once again reiterates that the District Registrars across Tamil Nadu shall not take any further action on the application submitted under Section 77A of the Registration Act, till a final decision is rendered by the Larger Bench. The Inspector General of Registration is directed to issue a Circular in this regard to all the District Registrars across the State of Tamil Nadu immediately” 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023
5.In view of the above decisions and considering the fact that the petitioner has already approached the competent civil Court in O.S.No.731 of 2012, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the civil suit, which is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai. The writ petitioner is also at liberty to invoke Section 77A of the Act upon the outcome of the reference made.
There shall be no order as to costs.
17.08.2023 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023 To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome Salai, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar, Madurai (South) District, 171, Aranmanai Salai, Madurai.
3.The Joint Sub-Registrar (No.4), Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Madurai District.
8/9https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
vrn Order made in W.P(MD)No.19895 of 2023 17.08.2023 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis