Madras High Court
R.G.Rathinam vs The Sub Registrar on 2 July, 2009
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02/07/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.3404 of 2009 R.G.Rathinam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram TK & District. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Audit Memorandum No.1 of 2009 dated 16.04.2009 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently issue suitable direction, directing the 1st respondent to register the sale deed dated 08.04.2009 in respect of S.No.436/1- B, Vani Village, Sakarakottai Ul Kadai, Sakarakootai Group, Ramanathapuram District presented for Registration. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Sitharanjandas ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Gandiraj, Government Advocate. :ORDER
The property in S.No.436/1-B, Vani Village, Sakarakottai Group, Ramanathapuram comprised in patta No.815 of an extent of 77 cents belonged originally to Bathurusaman of Karikootam and the said land was purchased by S.O.M.Alifulla and A.J.P.Ibrahim. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased 1 acre 77 cents out of 1 acre 77 cents from A.J.P.Ibrahim and the legal heirs of S.O.M.Alifulla executed the sale deed on 08.04.2009 through their power agent. When the deed presented for registration before the first respondent by the petitioner and his vendors, the first respondent refused to register the document stating that they have received instructions in Audit Memo No.1 of 2009 dated 16.04.2009 in respect of S.No.436/1-B from the second respondent stating that a case has been registered in Crime No.7 of 2008 dated 18.09.2008 by the District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram and therefore, the Sub Registrar requested not to register any document either by sale or encumbrance and hence the document presented by the petitioner cannot be registered.
2.It is also mentioned in the said memo that if the petitioner obtains no objection certificate from the District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, the first respondent shall register the document. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the of the first respondent and for a direction directing the first respondent to register the document.
3.Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that a case has been registered in respect of forgery of documents in Crime No.7 of 2008 under Sections 109, 419, 465, 468, 471, 420, 506(ii) IPC against one Mr.S.M.Noor Mohamed as he has fraudulently sold properties belonging to others by creating forged documents and the District Crime Branch received so many complaints from the affected and aggrieved persons vide Crime Nos.9/2007, 5/2008, 8/2008, 9/2008 and 10/2008 in addition crime No.7 of 2008 and for the investigation, they have to collect various documents to ascertain the ownership of the properties and therefore, such instruction was issued by the second respondent directing the first respondent not to register the documents in respect of S.No.436/1-B. It is further stated by the learned Government Advocate that the Investigating Officer can issue reasonable instruction to the Sub Registrar of Registration to refuse registration if it is extremely necessary in the interest of justice.
4.Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent can refuse the registration only for the reasons stated in Sections 22-A, 34 and 35 of the Registration Act and he cannot refuse registration on the ground of receiving objections from the second respondent. As per Section 34, the Sub Registrar can conduct enquiry about the identity of the person executing document or to satisfy himself the right of such person to appear in executing the document as stated in Section 34 (3) of the Registration Act. Section 35 deals with the procedure of admission and the denial of execution respectively and following the procedures stated therein, the Sub Registrar can either register or refuse the document. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the Sub Registrar has no power to refuse the registration at the behest of the second respondent and the second respondent has no authority to issue such instructions to the first respondent.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner further developed his argument by stating that the case in Crime No.7 of 2008 was registered at the instance of one of his vendors against the said Noor Mohammed and no case has been registered against his vendor as if they have committed the offence of cheating or forgery and therefore, the act of the respondents in refusing to register the documents validly executed by his vendors is not legal and therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside. He also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported 2007 (3) CTC 243 ( M.L.Mathews Vs. The Inspector General of Registration) wherein the scope of Sections 34 and 35 and Rule 55 of the Registration Act and Rules was elaborately dealt with.
6.I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties.
7.In this case, admittedly, the document executed by Syeed Iburakim and others in respect of the petitioner a case was registered in Crime No.7 of 2008 at the instance of the Mohamed Sultan one of the vendors of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that the vendors who have agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner have no authority to sign the documents or they are not the owners of the property or they have committed the offence of cheating or forgery in respect of the document. The only ground on which the registration was refused was that a case was registered in Crime No.7 of 2008 and other crime numbers in respect of the property in S.No.430/1-B and therefore, the registration cannot be permitted.
8.In my opinion, the second respondent has no power to give instructions to the Sub Registrar, directing him not to register the document in respect of S.No.436/1-B which is involved in criminal case. Further, the first respondent also cannot refuse to register the document except on the ground of the property is not situated within his jurisdiction or as per the conditions stated in Sections 34 and 35 of the Act. As stated supra, there is no complaint against the vendors of the petitioner and it is not the case of the respondents that forgery has been committed in respect of the documents which is sought to be presented by the petitioner for registration. When the vendors admitted the execution, it is the duty of the Sub Registrar to receive the documents and register the same, if proper stamp duty is paid and the property is within his jurisdiction and the Sub Registrar is not expected to conduct roving enquiry regarding the title and ownership of the property who executed the document. Further the Sub Registrar is not bound by the instructions or letters given by the Police in the matter of registration and they will have to act only in accordance with the Registration Act while admitting or rejecting the document for registration. As the vendors admitted the execution and there is no fault on their part, the first respondent ought not to have refused to register the document on the ground that the impugned order has passed based on the instruction given by the second respondent. The second respondent has no authority to pass such an order and hence, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to receive the document dated 08.04.2009 and after conducting enquiry as per the provisions of 34 and 35 of Registration Act and after ascertaining the identity of the parties, register the document in accordance with law.
9.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
sms To
1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram TK & District.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.