Madras High Court
Rukmani Ganesan vs The Sub-Registrar on 21 December, 2012
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition (MD) No.10479 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 Rukmani Ganesan .. Petitioner vs. The Sub-Registrar, O/o.Sub Registrar, Tiruppathur, Sivagangai District. .. Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.93/2012 dated 20.06.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 20.06.2012 executed by one Shanmugavalli to the petitioner which was submitted for registration to the respondent within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates ^For Respondent ... Mr.D.Muruganandham, Addl. Govt.Pleader :ORDER
The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent and also to direct the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the lands at Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.
2. Brief case of the petitioner are as follows:
(a) Petitioner is a resident of Thiruvudayarpatti Village in Tirupathur Taluk in Sivagangai District. Her husband is doing business in Malaysia. Petitioner and her son are residing in their native village. When the petitioner intended to buy a property in the said village, they approached one Shanmugavalli of Mahibalanpatti Village in Tirupathur Taluk in Sivagangai District, who offered to sell her lands to an extent of 20 cents out of total 58 cents held by her father Veeraiah Ambalam in S.No.82, Thiruvudayarpatti Village, Sivagangai District. Veeraiah Ambalam died intestate on 03.12.1993 leaving behind the said Shanmugavalli, her sister Sakunthala and her brother Ramanathan as the only heirs. The Tahsildar, Thirupathur has also issued a legal heir certificate on 31.01.1995 certifying that the said Shanmugavalli and her sister and brother are the only legal heirs of late Veeraiah Ambalam.
(b) On the death of her father, the patta in respect of the said lands in S.No.82/10 stood jointly in the name of Shanmugavalli and her siblings. Since she was in need of money, petitioner agreed to purchase the share of said Shanmugavalli in the 58 cents in S.No.82/10. Sale consideration given by the petitioner was duly accepted by Shanmugavalli in the presence of her brother and sister and she has also executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner for the sale of land to an extent of 20 cents out of 59 cents. When the sale deed was presented by the petitioner along with necessary fees for registration on 20.06.2012 before the respondent, he asked them to come in the afternoon. When they again visited the office of the respondent, the same was returned on the same day vide impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.93/12 stating that the subject matter of registration had been sold by one Baskaran to one Muthukrishnan and Kalaiselvi jointly vide Document No.615/2005 to an extent of 59 cents. It has been further stated in the impugned proceedings that out of 59 cents, Kalaiselvi sold her portion of 29.5 cents vide Document No.2123/2012 to one Muthukumar on 20.06.2012 forenoon. As such, the sale deed cannot be registered since Shanmugavalli has no title to it and only Kalaiselvi has title to the said property.
(c) It is the further case of the petitioner that neither the said Kalaiselvi nor her predecessor-in-title has any right or interest over the property in S.No.82/10 and they were asked to come in the afternoon by the respondent to register the sale deed and thereafter, the respondent had registered the sale deed of the said Kalaiselvi on the same day and had chosen to return the sale deed submitted by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the vendor has no title to the property. The respondent has no jurisdiction to decide on the title of a particular land and to refuse registration of a document presented for registration. Only the civil court has the jurisdiction to decide on the title of any property. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that check slip No.93/2012 dated 20.06.2012 issued by the respondent in respect of the sale deed dated 20.06.2012 in favour of the petitioner is based on departmental instructions issued to the registering officer by the Inspector General of Registration. It is not in dispute that the petitioner wanted to buy the land from one Shanmugavalli of Mahibalanpatti Village, who, according to her, inherited it from her father and the joint patta stood in the name of Shanmugavalli and her siblings and also the share of Shanmugavalli, namely, 20 cents out of 58 cents. In the Circular issued by the Inspector General Registration, it is reiterated that since the object and purpose of the Registration Act is to provide information to public regarding the transaction that had taken place in a property, in order to fulfill the objects of the Act, the Sub-Registrars should verify the previous original documents to ascertain the right over the property by the persons who executed the documents. Accordingly, when the sale deed was presented for registration before the respondent on 20.06.2012, the respondent verified the previous original documents / Patta and other revenue records to ascertain the right over the property by the person who executed the document. On verification, it was found that the total extent of 59 cents (0.24.0 Hectares) in S.No.82/10 Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village was sold to Veera Muthukrishnan and Kalaiselvi through a sale deed by one Baskaran, who had purchased the property through a sale deed. Subsequently, the said Veera Muthukrishnan and Kalaiselvi have sold their respective half shares each to one Rama.Muthukumar through sale deeds registered as No.2127/2007 and 2123/2012 respectively. Sale deed No.2123/2012 was registered only on the forenoon of 20.06.2012 by the respondent. Thus, as per the said two sale deeds, one Rama.Muthukumar had purchased the entire extent of 59 cents in S.No.82/10. As per the particulars available, the vendor Shanmugavalli has no right over the property sold. Hence, this impediment for registration was intimated to the petitioner vide check slip. Since the petitioner's document was presented subsequent to the registration of document No.2123/2012, the petitioner's document was returned for valid reasons. Hence, based on the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration only, the respondent has passed the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has no legal authority to refuse the document presented for registration stating that the property which is the subject matter of the document has already been sold by another person to third party. The respondent, by issuing the impugned order, has decided the title over the petition property which could be done only by the Civil Court and not by the respondent. In this regard, by inviting the attention to the joint patta issued by the Tahsildar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the joint patta issued by the Tahsildar would show that the property stands in the name of the petitioner and her sister and brother. In the circumstances, the respondent is bound to register the document and if there is any dispute over the title, the parties have to agitate the same before the Civil Court.
5. Further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by inviting the attention of this Court to the Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, has submitted that the Inspector General of Registration has no power to give a direction to the Registrars not to register the document if there is any dispute over title. Such a direction is against the provisions of the Registration Act. The Registrar can refuse to register the document only on certain grounds provided under Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, which speaks about the duty of the registering officer. The Registering Officer, under section 83 of the Act, can commence prosecution, by invoking section 82 of the Act for offences like false personation alone, examining the ownership of the vendor over the land sold is beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the Registering Officer. In this regard, the learned senior counsel has relied on the judgments reported in V.K.AMALRAJ .vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION) AND OTHERS (CDJ 2011 MHC 697), R.G.RATHINAM .vs. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFCE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, VELIPATTINAM, RAMANATHAPURAM AND ANOTHER (2009-3-L.W.890) and T.SUNDAR .vs. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB- REGISTRAR, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TIRUNELVELI AND ANOTHER (2010 (2) CWC 159).
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent had passed the impugned order only based on the departmental instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration. The said instruction was issued by the Inspector General of Registration with an intention to prevent the fraudulent registration. In the said Circular, it has been reiterated that the Sub Registrars are directed to verify the previous original documents and other revenue records to ascertain the right over the property. So far as the present case is concerned, already the property was sold by one Baskaran to Veera Muthu Krishnan and Kalai Selvi in the year 2005 under Document No.615/2005, who, in turn sold the same to Rama Muthukumar vide document No.2127/2007 and 2123/2012. Since the respondent found that the petitioner has no right over the property, the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, no infirmity could be found and the writ petition deserves dismissal.
7. In view of submissions made on either side, the question falls for consideration is, Whether the Sub-Registrar has powers to refuse the document presented for registration on the ground that the vendor has no title over the property ?
8. Before dealing with the factual aspects of this case, it would be apposite to extract the relevant rule, which speaks the duty of the registration officer, as under:
"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".
9. A reading of the said Rule would show that it is not the duty of the registering officer to enquire into the validity of the 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 and he has to consider the objections raised on any one of the grounds stated in Rule 55. The said rule further would reveal that if there is any impersonation on the part of the executants to the document or there is any element of fraud, then only the Sub Registrar is entitled to enquire into the matter. But here, it is not the case of the respondent that there is impersonation on the part of the executants. On the other hand, the impugned order was passed stating that the vendor has no right over the property.
10. For better understanding, it would be appropriate to extract the impugned order.
"jpUt[ilahh;gl;o fpuhkk;. fnzrd; mk;gyk; kidtp jpUkjp/Uf;kzp mk;khs; mth;fs; jhf;fy; bra;j brhj;J jpUt[ilahh;gl;o fpuhk rh;nt vz; 82-10 Vh;!; 0/24/0f;F brz;L 59y; gphptpy;yhj brz;L 19/50 MFk;/ nkw;fz;l rh;nt vz; 82-10 jpUt[ilahh;gl;o fpuhkj;jpy; Vh;!; 0/24/0f;F brz;L 59k; Mtz vz; 615-2005d;go gh!;fud; vd;gtuhy; jpU/tPuKj;JfpUc;&zd; (1). fiyr;bry;tp (2) ngh;fSf;Fk; Tl;lhf fpiuak; bgwg;gl;lJ/ Tl;lhf fpiuak; bgw;w brhj;jpy; ghjpia jpUkjp/fiyr;bry;tp vd;gth; 20/06/2012k; njjp jdf;Fhpa tPjk; br/29?1-2I Mtz vz; 2123- 2012d;go uhkrhkp kfd; Kj;Jf;Fkhh; vd;gtUf;F ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; Mtzk; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ vdnt Kd;Mtzg;go rh;nt vz; 82-10. Vw;fdnt 2 egh;fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;J vd;gjhy; jhk; jhf;fy; bra;j Mtzj;ij gjpt[ rl;ltpjpfspd;go xUth; fpiuak; bgw;w brhj;ij ntW egh; chpik bfhz;lhl Koahjjhy; Mtzk; gjpt[ bra;a ,ayhky; jpUk;g tH';fg;gLfpd;wJ@/
11. A reading of the said order would show that the Registrar has refused to register the document on the ground that the property belonged to one Kalai Selvi. On the other hand, the impugned order was passed by the Registrar by coming to conclusion that the vendor of the petitioner has no title over the property and as such, the same could not be registered. Rule 55 does not provide enquiry with regard to the right and ownership of the same. The authority concerned are only bound to verify whether there is any fraud or forgery of the document. In my opinion, the respondent ought not to have refused to register the document. In these circumstances, I do not agree with the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Sub Registrar had acted only as per the circular issued by Inspector General of Registration. If the instruction issued by way of circular against the object of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and if the impugned order is based on the instruction, it is liable to be set aside. So far as the present case is concerned, the alleged instruction given by the Inspector General of Registration is totally against the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and, accordingly, quashed.
In fine, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.
gl To The Sub-Registrar, O/o.Sub Registrar, Tiruppathur, Sivagangai District.