Madras High Court
S.Geetha Ranjani vs The District Registrar on 4 June, 2019
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 21.12.2018
Pronounced On 04.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P(MD)Nos.17794 & 17795 of 2014
S.Geetha Ranjani ... Petitioner
in both W.Ps
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Trichy.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Lalgudi, Ariyalur District.
3.M/s.Kalimaghal Sabha,
Rep.by its Official Receiver,
Office at New No: 17 (Old No.48),
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. ... Respondents
in both W.Ps
Common Prayer in both W.Ps: Writ Petitions are filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the second respondent to return the
original sale deeds dated 13.11.2013 & 14.03.2014 vide deeds of
Sale Doc.Nos. P 201300161/ 2013 & P 201400032/2014 owned by
the petitioner within a reasonable time.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.C.B.Muralikrishnan
in both W.Ps.
For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan GA for R1 & R2
in both W.Ps.
Mr.R.Vijayakumar for R3
in both W.Ps.
*****
COMMON ORDER
By this common order both the writ petitions are being disposed.
2.Earlier, by two separate orders dated 05.11.2014, both the above writ petitions viz. W.P.(MD).Nos.17794 and 17795 of 2014 were disposed.
3.These present writ petitions were originally filed without impleading the 3rd respondent Kalaimaghal Sabha.
4.By the aforesaid order, the 1st and the 2nd respondents herein were directed to return the two documents and to simultaneously refer the case under section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act for determination of the appropriate stamp duty payable by the petitioner. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
5.Both these orders dated 05.11.2014 were challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.260 and 1150 of 2016 by the 1st and 2nd respondents herein.
6.By a common order dated 19.09.2017, these two orders dated 05.11.2014 were set aside and the cases were remitted back to be decided afresh with a direction to implead the 3rd respondent M/s. Kalaimaghal Sabha, represented by Joint Receivers.
7.Thus, pursuant to the remand order in W.A.(MD).Nos.260 and 1150 of 2016, the petitioner herein amended the cause titles in the respective writ petitions and has impleaded the 3rd respondent herein. Pursuant to the impleading of the 3rd respondent, additional facts have been brought to the notice of the Court.
8.From the records, it is further noticed that these writ petitions were also dismissed on an earlier occasion on 31.10.2017 and were restored by an order dated 16.11.2017 and were directed to be listed for hearing.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
9.These cases were earlier reserved by me while sitting in Madurai. Later, the case was listed for clarification through video conference on 28.02.2019.
10.Thereafter, the case was argued and reserved for passing orders. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent also requested time for filing written submission.
11.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent filed written arguments on 19.03.2019 before the Registry, Madurai High Court. Same was transmitted by the Registry on 08.4.2019.
12.Heard Mr. C. B.Murali Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the 1st and the 2nd respondent and Mr. R. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written submission. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 22.10.2018.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
14.The 2nd respondent in their counter affidavit signed on 22.10.2018 by Mrs. Hemalathabai, the incumbent officer occupying the seat of the 2nd respondent at the time of filing of the counter has stated that if the 3rd respondent has no objection and the registering authority will complete the registration of the pending document dated 13.11.2013 and 14.03.2014 executed in favour of the petitioner.
15.The 2nd respondent has further stated that after verifying the revenue records and other parent documents standing in the name of the original vendor the documents were registered by way of sale deed in document No.2544/13, 2545/13 and 2546/13 dated 29.04.2013 in favour of the Petitioner’s vendors.
16.The 2nd respondent has further stated that on verification of the documents it was noticed that the land belongs to the 3rd respondent who were subsequently impleaded in the present writ petitions and that if the 3rd respondent has no objection to the registration of the land in favour of the petitioner then they will comply.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
17.The contesting respondent namely, the 3rd respondent has not filed a counter. However, the 3rd respondent has filed a detailed written submission through its counsel and has filed a typed set of documents. A composite typed set was also filed by the petitioner apart from the case laws.
18.To decide the issue, it is necessary to state relevant the facts. These subject lands were originally owned by one N.V.Rangaraju, the Sole proprietor of M/s.Encar Hi Grow Investments.
19.Land to an extent of 7.73 ¾ acres which includes the subject lands were earlier sold to the 3rdrespondent M/s. Kalaimaghal Sabha by a sale deed dated 03.12.1996 by the said N.V.Rangaraju, the Sole proprietor of M/s.Encar Hi Grow Investments.
20.These lands are located within the jurisdiction of the second respondent Sub-Registrar’s Office in Lalgudi, Ariyalur District.
21.It appears another parcel of land was covered by another sale deed dated 31.12.1996. Details of the 2nd sale deed is not available. http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Registrations of both the documents were not completed and were kept pending from 1996.
22.The details of land covered by the sale deed dated 03.12.1996 are as follows:-
S.No Survey No Extent of Land Value
(in Acres)
1 147/1 3.22 ½ Rs.16,12,500/-
2 147/3 0.34 Rs. 1,70,000/-
3 147/1C 3.22 ½ Rs.16,11,250/-
4 154/1 A 0.71.5 Rs. 3,57,500/-
5 154/1 B 0.15 Rs. 75,000/-
6 154/1 D 0.08.5 Rs. 42,500/-
Total 7.73 ¾ Rs.38,68,750/-
23.The total extent of land in composite Survey No.147/1 is stated to be 8.57 acres and the total extent of land in Survey No. 147/1C is 3.22 ½ acres.
24.The said N.V.Rangaraju transferred 3.22 ½ acres out of 8.57 acres in Survey No.147/1 and extent of 3.22 ½ acres in Survey No. 147/1C to the 3rd respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
25.Though the said N.V.Rangaraju sold the entire parcel of 7.73 ¾ vide sale deed dated 03.12.1996 as in the above table to the 3rd respondent, he once again sold a portion of the land to the petitioner’s vendors namely K.Maheswaran and A.Mahalingam contrary to directions of the Court in W.P No.514 of 1999.
26.Thus, Vide two separate sale deeds dated 29.04.201, the said N.V.Rangaraju sold 2.94 Acres (1.19.0 Hectares) in 147/1C1 to K.Maheswaran and A.Mahalingam. These sale deeds were registered as Document Nos.2544/13 and 2546/13.
27.Similarly vide Sale deed dated 29.04.2013 the said N.V.Rangaraju sold land to an extent of 1.33 Acres out of 2.88 Acres in Survey No.147/1B1 to A.Mahalingam. The said sale deed was registered as Doc.No.2545/13.
28.Thus, there are details of three sales deeds executed by the said by one N.V.Rangaraju, the Sole proprietor of M/s.Encar Hi Grow Investments in favour of the petitioner’s vendors. http://www.judis.nic.in 9
29.The petitioner purchased two parcels of land measuring 1.82 acres in S.No.147/1C1 and 1.33 acres of land in S.No.147/1B1 vide sale deed dated 13.11.2013 and 14.03.2014 from the said K.Maheswaran and A.Mahalingam.
30.These documents have been kept pending vide pending Document No.201300161/2013 and pending document No. 201400032/2014. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petitions for the above relief.
31.The fate of balance area of land measuring 1.12 Acre in S.No. 147/1C1 transferred to A.Mahalingam by the said N.V.Rangaraju and registered vide Document No.2546/13 is not known. The fate of balance area of land to an extent of 1.55 Acre in Survey No.147/1B1 is also not known.
32.In fact, fate of the balance land covered by sale deed 3.12.1996 executed in favour of the 3rd respondent is also not known except to the extent as mentioned above. Fate of land sold to the 3rd respondent vide sale deed dated 31.12.1996 is also not known. http://www.judis.nic.in 10
33.According to the petitioner, she has paid valuable consideration to her vendors pursuant to which, the two documents were executed and presented for registration before the 2nd respondent herein which has been now kept pending vide Pending Document Nos.P201300161/2014 and P201400032/2014 in respect of land in Survey No.147/1B1 for 1.33 acres and S.No.147/1C1 for 1.82 acres respectively.
34.According to the petitioner after completion of the formalities, the petitioner was asked to come and collect the documents within a week’s time but the documents have been kept pending and the 2nd respondent kept postponing the return of the document.
35.According to the petitioner, the 1st and the 2nd respondents cannot retain the documents after completion of registration formalities in accordance to Sections 52, 60 and 61 of the Registration Act, 1908.
36.It was submitted that since the properties were not registered in the name of the 3rd respondent M/s. Kalaimaghal Sabha, the refusal http://www.judis.nic.in 11 and failure to return the documents after registration to her were not proper.
37.If the 3rd respondent was aggrieved, it can approach a civil court for appropriate remedy and that the 3rd respondent cannot object to the registration of the property in the name of the petitioner particularly when the 2nd respondent had themselves registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner's vendor.
38.Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:-
i. A.S.Anbalagan vs. M.Krishnamurthy and Others in W.A.Nos.677 and678 of 2005.
ii. Appourva J. Patel vs. The Inspector General of Registration & Another 2012 (4) CTC 689.
iii. BalKrishnan Gupta and Others vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited and Another CDJ 1985 SC 191.
iv. Har Narai (Dead) by LRS vs. Mam Chand (Dead) by LRS & Ors Civil Appeal Nos.995-996 of 2003.
v. In T.G.Rajaselvam vs. The Sub Registrar CDJ 2008 MHC 3788.
vi. Kusum Lata vs. State of U.P and others 2018 (6) CTC 241. http://www.judis.nic.in 12 vii.R.G.Rathinam vs. The Sub Registrar & Another CDJ 2009 MHC 3110.
viii.Ram Saran Lall & Others vs. Domini Kuer & Others CDJ 1961 SC 337.
ix. Ramaswamy vs. The Inspector General of Registrations and Others 2003-4-L.W.319.
x. S.Praveen Bohra vs. Joint– I Sub-Registrar W.P.No.36079 of 2015.
xi. Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P and ors (2016) 10 SCC 767. xii.T.Sundar vs. The Sub Registrar & Another 2010 (2) CWC 159. xiii.Tata Coffee Limited vs. The State of TamilNadu & Others 2008-3-L.W.286.
xiv.Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkadu Grama Vivsayigal Pathukappu Mattrum Makkal Pothunal Sangam vs. The Chaiman, TamilNadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Others CDJ 2008 MHC 6162.
39.Per Contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the vendors of the petitioner was fraudulent and therefore, there is no question of legitimising the fraud perpetrated by the petitioner in collusion with her vendors and the original vendor namely N.V.Rangaraju.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13
40.It was submitted that the original owner of the land having transferred the property for valuable consideration to the 3rd respondent could not have transferred the same once again in favour of the vendors of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed.
41.According to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the transaction is vitiated by fraud and therefore the document cannot be returned. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in 2017 (5) LW 212. Though cited in written submission there is no such case law with the above citation.
42.The 3rd respondent, Kalaimaghal Sabha appears to have been registered as a Society under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and had become defunct.
43.Though copies of bye laws of 3rd respondent are not available, it appears it was engaged in investing in land by inviting contributions from its members and had encountered financial difficulties and had become http://www.judis.nic.in defunct.
14
44.Earlier, by G.O.(Per) No.17, Commercial Taxes (M) Department dated 15.02.1999, a Special officer was also appointed by the State Government to look after the affairs of the 3rd respondent.
45.By an order dated 30.03.1999, the Principal Bench of this High Court in W.P.No.514 of 1999 appointed Thiru.S.Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate, Thiru.N.Meenakshisundaram, Advocate & Retd. District Judge and the Special Officer appointed by the Government to act as the Joint Receivers of the 3rd respondent.
46.The 3rd respondent is thus represented by Joint Receivers in these proceedings. Though, the W.P No.514 of 1999 was disposed on 30.03.1999, several orders have been passed subsequently to give effect to the order.
47.Two memos were filed by the Joint Receivers in W.P.No.514 of 1999 to cancel sales illegally affected by the previous owners of various properties of the 3rd respondent in favour of third parties and for a directions to not to admit any documents for registration of the land belonging to the 3rd respondent for the 2nd time in favour of 3rd parties http://www.judis.nic.in without notice to the Joint Receivers. 15
48.By an order dated 29.10.2009 in W.P.No 514 of 1999, the Taluk officers were directed to issue patta to the 3rd respondent, after due verification expeditiously preferably within a week’s time to protect the lands of the 3rd respondent.
49.Importantly, no registration of land was to be made without reference to the Joint Receivers. The Joint Receivers were also directed to furnish the list of properties of the 3rd respondent district-wise located in the State to the Special Government Pleader who in turn was required to give necessary instructions to the 2nd respondent therein namely the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai 28 to all the Officers.
50.Mr.Desinghu, Advocate and the then Special Government Pleader by a letter dated 03.12.2009 addressed to the 1st respondent herein had informed that the erstwhile management of the 3rd respondent had purchased nearly 13,000 acres of land apart from different kinds of assets in the form of buildings in various parts of Tamil Nadu spreading over 24 districts and that the erstwhile management of the 3rd respondent had failed to register/transfer and obtain the patta after the purchase of the properties, and in view of the http://www.judis.nic.in 16 same many of the land owners who had already sold the land to the 3 rd respondent and had parted with ownership were attempting to effect for 2nd sale in order to enrich themselves unlawfully as the value of the land had increased considerably.
51.Mr.G.Desinghu, Advocate and the then Special Government Pleader had in fact in the aforesaid letter dated 03.12.2009 addressed to Inspector General of Registration requested not to register any sale deed in respect of the property belonging to the 3rd respondent Kalaimaghal Sabha without reference to the Joint Receivers appointed by the Court.
52.Thereafter, on 10.12.2009, a circular of the Inspector General of Registration to District Registrars and Sub-Registrars was also issued to get prior permission of the Joint Receivers appointed by the Court with reference to the properties standing in the name of the 3rd respondent M/s. Kalaimaghal Sabha.
53.Meanwhile, TANPID Court also appears to have attached the assets of M/s.Encar Hi Grow Investments in O.A.No.7 of 2001 filed by its creditors.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17
54.Meanwhile, the said N.V.Rangaraju, the proprietor of Encar Hi Grow Investments filed W.P.No.19378 of 2011 to raise the order of attachment and to permit him to deposit a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to the credit of the 3rd respondent M/s.Kalaimaghal Sabha so as to sell the land sold by him to the 3rd respondent.
55.The said writ petition was filed against the 3rd respondent M/s. Kalaimaghal Sabha, Encar and Shri.Mariyas, Depositors Association and the Competent Authority, District Revenue Officer.
56.In the said writ petition, an additional affidavit was filed by the said N.V Rengaraju, the proprietor of Encar Hi Grow Investments wherein he has given the details the land sold by him to the 3 rd respondent and the attachment order dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997.
57.In the additional affidavit dated 21st September 2012 filed in the said writ petition, he had stated that the though properties were purchased by the 3rd respondent herein (1st respondent therein) vide two http://www.judis.nic.in sale deeds dated 03.12.1996 and 31.12.1996, the same were set 18 at naught by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) by an order dated 14.12.2010.
58.In his additional affidavit Mr.N.V.Rangaraju had pleaded that the two sale deeds referred to above were not valid and that the 3rd respondent herein had not derived any rights over the property and that the possession of the properties were also not transferred to the 3rd respondent herein.
59.He had further submitted that the said property was also attached in the execution of the money decree passed in O.S.No.411 of 2007 in E.P.No.438 of 2008 and that the same was subsisting.
60.The said N.V.Rengaraju, had further submitted that originally O.S.No.349 of 1996 was also filed before the District Court for specific performance and that the same was later transferred to the Principal Sub-Court, Trichy and renumbered as O.S.No.26 of 2004, which was pending. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent had filed I.A Nos.500 and 501 of 2002 to implead itself and the same were allowed. http://www.judis.nic.in 19
61.The said N.V.Rangaraju had also alluded to yet another suit in O.S.No.50 of 2007 filed by one Muruganandam against himself and the 3rd respondent. Though the said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, the case was remanded back by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by an order dated 02.02.2010 in A.S.No.234 of 2009 and that suit was pending before the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Trichy.
62.Apart from the above, reference had also been made to several other proceedings including the proceedings before the Special Court. The said N.V.Rangaraju had however stated that all the properties except the property at Madagudi village have been attached and sold and therefore if the properties under subject are redeemed, he would be in a position to restart a new life.
63.The said N .V .Rangaraju had also undertook to deposit a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to the credit of 3rd respondent herein. However, after giving the aforesaid offer, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 20.12.2012.
http://www.judis.nic.in 20
64.Soon after withdrawing the above Writ Petition, he had executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioner’s vendors viz A.Mahalingam and K.Maheswaran, vide three separate sale deeds dated 29.04.2013 to an extent of 1.33 acres in S.No.147/1B1 and 1.12 acre and 1.82 acre in S.No.147/1C1 by registered vide Document Nos. 2544/2013, 2545/2013 and 2546/2013.
65.Curiously, these sale deeds were also registered by the 2nd respondent despite circular No.62654/el/09-2 dated 10.12.2009 issued pursuant to order passed by the Principal Bench of this Court and order dated on 29.10.2009 in WP.No.514 of 1999.
66.The said circular had also been impugned order in W.P.Nos. 28040 and 28041 of 2014 by the petitioner but was later withdrawn on 19.09.2017.
67.It is not clear as to how the officer of the 2nd respondent could have registered these documents when already a document for registering the earlier sale deed had been executed in favour of the 3rd respondent http://www.judis.nic.in and was kept pending. 21
68.It is also not clear which other properties of the 3rd respondent have been illegally sold by the said N.V Rengaraju to third parties.
69.The facts which have emerged in the these two writ petition only indicate that the previous vendor of the 3rd respondent may have sold the entire extent of land in active connivance of land sharks as the 3rd respondent had become inactive.
70.It is also noticed that the though W.P.No.514 of 1999 had been disposed, several miscellaneous petition have been filed for orders in W.P.No.514 of 1999. Though not informed to the Court, it is noticed that several miscellaneous petitions were filed to legitimize the sales before the Court in W.P.No.514 of 1999.
71.The petitioner has also impleaed herself in W.P.No.514 of 1999 vide M.P.No.76 of 2015.
72.From the records it is noticed that is, prior to 29.04.2013, the Special Officer by a letter dated 11.09.2012 bearing reference Letter http://www.judis.nic.in 22 No. 2115/2001 addressed to the 2nd respondent had inquired about the status of Pending Document No.291/96 and Pending Document No 78/97 presented by the 3rd respondent for registration.
73.Copy of the said letter is not available on record for perusal. Pending Document No.291/96 and Pending Document No 78/97 presumably pertain to two sale deeds i.e. 03.12.1996 and 31.12.1996.
74.The then incumbent Shri.R. Rajagopal occupying seat of the 2nd respondent herein by letter dated 14.09.2012 bearing reference Na.Ka. No.142 / 2012 in response to the said letter dated 11.09.2012 bearing reference Letter No.2115/2001 has stated that he will verify the status of Pending DocumentNo.291/96 and revert and as far as Pending Document No 78/97 was concerned he will verify from the 1st respondent as to what steps were to be taken.
75.This indicates that that the office of the 1st and the 2nd respondent was aware of the embargo on the sale and registration of the land sold to the 3rd respondent and orders passed in W.P.No.514 of 1999 from time to time.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23
76.The 3rd respondent has filed the copy of the sale deed dated 03.12.1996 wherein there is an endorsement to the effect that the same kept pending vide P.No.291/96. This documents pertains the transfer of the entire extent of 7.73 ¾ Acres in S.Nos. 147/1, 147/3, 147/1C, 154/ 1 A, 154/ 1 B, 154/ 1 D from which the petitioner has purchased a portion of the land from her venodrs.
77.By a letter dated 30.04.2014, Thiru.S.Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate who is one of the Joint Receiver appointed by the Court in orders dated 30.03.1999 and 30.04.1999 in W.P.No.514 of 1999 has given the entire history of the properties that were purchased by the 3rd respondent Kalaimaghal Sabha and how the said Rangaraju, proprietor of the Encar Hi Grow Investments had colluded with the office of the Sub-Registry to transfer parcels of the lands vide three separate sale deeds in favour of the petitioner’s vendors namely A.Mahalingam and Maheswaran.
78.He has therefore requested the Superintendent of Police, Tirchy to initiate appropriate action against them under Section 120 B of IPC by a complaint dated 30.04.2014. It is not clear whether further steps have been taken.
http://www.judis.nic.in 24
79.Joint Receivers appointed by the Court had given the status of various property stating that the respondent had purchased a total extent of 7.73 ¾ acres of land from the said Rangaraju of Encar Hi Grow Investments in various Survey Numbers and status of several proceedings including the offer of the said Rangaraju in W.P.No.19378 of 2011.
80.By a letter dated 07.07.2015 bearing Ref.No.217/ 2015, the then Sub Registrar P.Maligha has stated that the Special Officer’s letter dated 07.11.2014 appointed pursuant to G.O.(Per) No.17, Commercial Taxes (M) Department dated 15.02.1999 appears to have given a no objection for sale of land in Survey Nos.147/1B 1 and 147/ 1C1.
81.The officer has stated that the said letter was signed only by the Special Officer and without the concurrence of the other Official Receivers appointed by the High Court and therefore not binding. The above letter was in response to a query from one Jayant Kumar M Mehta of Thillai Nagar, Trichy 18. Copy of the said letter has been also sent to the 1st respondent herein and head of the Sub-Registration Department.
http://www.judis.nic.in 25
82.Thus, it is clear that the said officers' predecessor i.e. Shri. R. Rajagopal occupying the seat of the 2nd respondent herein by letter dated 14.09.2012 bearing reference Na.Ka. No-142/2012 had earlier stated that he will verify the status of the pending document No. 291/96, registration of sale deed dated 29.04.2013 was allowed in favour of the petitioner’ s vendor vide Document No. 2544/13, Document No. 2545/13 and Document No.2546/13.
83.Further, there are also records to indicate that the Special Officer appointed by the State Government pursuant to order of the Court in W.P.No.514 of 1999 by his letter dated letter dated 07.11.2014 addressed to the 2nd respondent has given “no objection” for sale of the property in Survey No. 147/1B1 and Survey No 147/1C1.
84.This no objection perhaps pertains to the registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner or could be independent sale transaction.
85.Meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed WP.Nos.28040 and 28041 of 2015 to quash the circular dated 10.12.2009 bearing Ref.No. 62654/e1/09. The said prayer reads as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 26 “To call for the records of the circular issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 10.12.2009 in proceeding No. 62654/e1/09-2 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful and as against the property bearing iyan punja in surver No. 147/1C1 ad measuring extent of 1.82 acres out of which total extent 2.94 acres and in Survey No.147/1B1 ad measuring extent of 1.33 acres out of which total extent 2.88 respectively in Madagudi Village Lalgudi Division Registration District of Ariyalur and revenue District Trichy in consequently directing the 4th respondent to return the original sale deed dated 13.11.13 and 14.03.14 after completing the registration formalities vide pending Doc.No.P.201300161/2013 and Doc.No.201400032/2014 respectively.”
86.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and The Inspector General of Registration were the 1st and 2ndrespondents. The respondents herein were arrayed as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively.
87.The said writ petition was dismissed on 19.09.2017 after recording the request of the petitioner to withdraw those two writ petitions as it pertains to the same relief as in the present case.
88.The issue that arises before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief in above factual matrix merely http://www.judis.nic.in 27 because the petitioner’s vendor namely, A.Maheswaran and K Mahalingam had managed to register the sale deeds in their favour on 29.04.2013 vide Document Nos. 2544/13, 2545/13 and 2546/13.
89.From the factual discussion, it is clear that there has been large scale connivance between the N.V.Rangaraju the original vendor, vendors of the petitioner and possibly by concerned officer of the 2nd respondent who occupied the seat then.
90.It appears that several sale deeds may have been registered but only some of them have come up before consideration in the collateral proceedings. Therefore, the Joint Receivers may have been kept in dark.
91.No sale subsequent to the appointment of Joint Receivers ought to have taken place without the knowledge and the Court or the Joint Receivers.
92.In fact, registration of sale of the 3rd respondent’s assets have been allowed to be made contrary to the provision of the TamilNadu http://www.judis.nic.in 28 Societies Registration Act, 1975. In fact, the reason stated by the 2nd respondent to deny registration in favour of the petitioner and allowing registration in favour of the her vendors shows that all was not well.
93.The properties of the 3rd respondent association has been usurped by all and sundry merely because the 3rd respondent was a defunct society and despite Joint Receivers being appointed by the Court.
94.The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 contemplates a particular method for winding up of a registered society and for its eventual liquidation when it has become defunct and stops carrying on the activities for which it was registered. However, the procedure given therein has been given a go by resulting in large scale manipulation by land sharks such as the petitioner’s vendors.
95.It is evident from the facts narrated above that the vendors of the petitioner managed to get the sale deed registered in their favour despite orders of the Principal Bench of this Court in WP.No.514 of 1999.
http://www.judis.nic.in 29
96.As registration were contrary to the aforesaid order of the Court, they are a nullity. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for registration and return cannot be granted.
97.The Joint Receivers appointed by the court had also reported that the 2nd respondent had failed to register the documents in favour of 3rd respondent and the original vendors were attempting to sell the property once again thereby making unjust of profit. It being the case, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be allowed.
98.With reference to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no denying that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100 and upwards can be made only by registered instrument and under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is mandatory to register the sale of immovable properties and under Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 a fiction is created and the registration of sale deed dates back to the date of execution of the sale deed.
99.However, merely because the 3rd respondent became defunct, cannot mean that properties of the 3rd respondent cannot be sold http://www.judis.nic.in 30 particularly when Joint Receivers have been appointed to protect the interest of the 3rd respondent and it s members.
100.The Joint Receivers appointed by the Court are therefore directed to take steps to register the sale deeds dated 3.12.1996 and 31.12.1996 of the 3rd respondent forthwith. The 2nd respondent is directed to facilitate and complete the registration of the aforesaid said sale deeds in favour of the 3rd respondent. By this process, public at large will be warned of the existence of the registration of sale deed in favour of the 3rd respondent.
101.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries private Ltd vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 after referring to its earlier order dated 15.05.2009 has stated the objects and the benefits of registrations. It reads as under.
15.In the earlier order dated 15-5-2009 [(2009) 7 SCC 363 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] , the objects and benefits of registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference: (SCC p. 367, paras 15-18) “15. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to http://www.judis.nic.in transactions relating to immovable property 31 and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration.
16. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future ‘any right, title or interest’ whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs 100 and upwards to or in immovable property.
17. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affected such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed.
18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what http://www.judis.nic.in obligations exist with regard to them. It 32 ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.” Registration of documents makes the process of verification and certification of title easier and simpler. It reduces disputes and litigations to a large extent.”
102.The court reiterated that a sale was not complete until registration under section 47 of the Act. The above view was followed and approved in several decisions.
103.In the case of G.Muthalu Reddiar vs. 1. Srinivasan Padayatchi (died) and 9 others, 2011(2) MWN (Civil) 65, the Court followed K.R. Seetharamiah vs P.N. Narasimhan, 1989 (1) LW.
104.In K.R. Seetharamiah vs P.N. Narasimhan, 1989 (1) LW, it was held as follows:-
“It may be that under the Indian Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder there is no provision for the document being kept in the custody of the Registering Authority pending registration. However, the provisions of the Act and the Rules indicate that the time-limit must http://www.judis.nic.in be strictly adhered to only with reference to the 33 presentation of a document executed for registration and there is no time limit, as such, for other matters. It is desirable that registration of documents should be done as expeditiously as possible and in all cases as soon as the documents are presented for registration, subject to the fulfillment of the other requirements, but there is no prohibition in the Act, as such, enabling the concerned Registering Authority, to keep pending documents for registration. There is no time limit within which the registration as such should be done and the process of registration completed by the issue of the certificate under Section 60(2) of the Act.”
105.In the above mentioned case, it was also held as follows:
14. Under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act (TP Act), the sale of immovable property is concluded on transfer of ownership in it for a specific price or promise or part paid or part promised. It is subject to the registration of the deed, when the value is Rs. 100/- or above.
16. Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides that the document is to be presented for registration within four months from the date of its execution. There is no limitation for actual registration of a document, provided the requirements of law are satisfied regarding the presentation and acceptance thereof by the Registering Officer and appearance of the party for the purposes of admitting execution
18. As per Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required and not from the time of its registration, Thakurkishan Singh (decd.) v. Vinoth Kumar, 1998 (1) CTC 241 (SC).
20. As per Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act, http://www.judis.nic.in when the terms of a contract, are of a grant, or 34 of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases, in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of it contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions herein after before contained.
106.The Honourable Supreme Court in Har Narain versus Mam Chand 2010 (13) SCC 128 has held that the fiction created under section 47 Of the Act does not come into play before the actual registration of the document.
107.It held that the object of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 is to decide which of the two or more registered instrument in respect of the same property is to have effect. The Court held that he subsequent purchaser has to be aware before he purchases the suit property.
108.Therefore, Respondents 2 to 6 there were held to be not bona fide purchasers for value paid in good faith without notice of the original contract and the sale in their favour was subject to the doctrine http://www.judis.nic.in of lispendens. The court invoked the legal maxim, pendente 35 lite, nihilinnovetur.
109.The above principle will apply to the facts of the present case.
110.In Ram Saran Lal vs Domini Kuer AIR 1961 SC 1747 it was held that the said Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 applies to document only after it has been registered. It has nothing to do with the completion of the registration and, therefore nothing to do with the completion of the sale when the instrument is one of sale.
111.It was held that the sale which is admittedly not completed until registration of the instrument of sale is completed, cannot be said to have been completed earlier because by virtue of Section 47 of the Registration Act,1908 the instrument by which it is affected, after it has been registered, commences to operate from an earlier date.
112.In the case of Thiyagavalli Panchayathai Serntha Nochikkadu Grama Vivasayigal Pathukappu Mattrum Makkal Pothunala Sangam represented its Secretary, Nochikkadu vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Others CDJ 2008 MHC 6162, it was held as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 36 “.....14.That apart, there is no other provision under which the State Government or the respondents herein can validly issue any directions refusing to register any document for which registration is permissible under the provisions of the said Act. If that be so, it is shocking to note as to under what provision of law or any other authority, the second respondent issued such directions directing the third respondent not to register any sale deed in the villages of Thiyagavalli and Kudikkadu except in favour of “M/s.Cuddalore Power Company Ltd.” Any such directions issued by the second respondent and the impugned proceedings of the third respondent based on such a directive of the second respondent clearly infringes the constitutional right of any land owner as a citizen of this country. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings are wholly devoid of merit and are liable to be set aside.
.... The State Government cannot while taking re-course to the executive power of the State under Article 162, deprive a person of his property. Such power can be exercised only by authority of law and not by a mere executive fiat or order.
17.Applying the above said principle to the fact of this case, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned proceedings of the respondents are liable to be set aside as non-est in law.
Accordingly, setting aside the proceedings, the prayer of the petitioner stands allowed and the respondents are directed to receive an register all the documents present by them for registration pertaining to the villages namely, Thiyagavalli and Kudikkadu, if such documents satisfy the stipulations contained in the Registration Act of any other enactment governing such registration.” http://www.judis.nic.in 37
113.The Court held that that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.”
114.In the case of Seetharamiah K.R. vs P.N.Narasimhan, 1989(1) LW 103 it was held that there is no substance in the criticism that the document had been kept pending for an unduly long time between 4.11.1976 and 30.6.1978 and therefore, its delayed registration would deprive it of its efficacy as a registered instrument.
115.Section 52 of the Registration Act, 1908 casts duty on the registering officers when the documents are presented for registration. Chapter 2 of the Registration Rules contemplates adequate procedural safeguards to be complied when the documents are presented. The officer concerned has to examine the documents.
116.Similarly, an enquiry is also contemplated under Rule 55 of Chapter 11 Registration Rules.
http://www.judis.nic.in 38
117.Though, it forms no part of the duty of the registering officer to enquire into the validity of the document presented for registration or to attend to any written or oral/verbal request against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party has no right to execute the document, yet the registration could not have been completed in favour of the vendors of the petitioner contrary to the order of the Court in W.P.No.514 of 1999.
118.In T.G.Rajaselvam vs The Sub Registrar reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 3788, it was held as hereunder:
12...... Further the registration of this document would not preclude either the Government to issue an interim order of attachment or the competent Special Court to make the interim order absolute. Whether the transactions under which the petitioner has purchased these properties are genuine and whether properties are liable for attachment, are to be examined only by the Special Court.
For any reason if the Special Court comes to the conclusion that the transactions covered in these sale deeds are not genuine and they have been created only to defeat the interest of the depositors, then the Special Court will certainly proceed to make the interim order of attachment absolute and further proceed to recover the amount by selling these properties. Such kind of remedy is always available for the aggrieved parties or for the competent authority. In all the above stated proceedings, the respondent viz the Sub Registrar has no role to play. Admittedly, he is not the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial http://www.judis.nic.in Establishments) Act, 1997. He is after all an 39 authority under the Registration Act, who is bound by the said Act and the Rules there under. Under the Act, he is duty bound to register the documents and to release the same to the petitioner. The instructions given by the Inspector General of Registration, is non-est in the eye of law and the same does not bind the respondent as it cannot override the statutory provision. In my considered opinion, the action of the respondent in keeping the document pending without registering or without passing any order is not only irregular but it is illegal.”
119.The said order was passed in the light of G.O.Ms.No.580 Home (C&S IIA) Department, dated 18.05.1998 under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 and an ad-interim order of attachment by the Special Court under the TamilNadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) in C.C.No.13 of 1998.
120.In Narandas Karsondas vs S.A. Kamtam (1977) 3 SCC 247 the Court held that contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
121.In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre vs Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (2004) 8 SCC 614 the Court held as follows:-
“10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield http://www.judis.nic.in only against the transferor. It disentitles the 40 transferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed into service against a third party.”
122.Though, Rule 102 of the Registration Rules contemplates return of the documents on the date of its admission to registration, yet there were sufficient safeguards to refuse registration under Rule 162 of the aforesaid Rules in the facts peculiar to the present case.
123.Therefore, though it is not the duty of a registering officer to refuse registration when documents are presented for registration, nevertheless if there are prior documents for registration, subsequent registration cannot be made without an enquiry as has been done when the document were presented by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent.
124.It remains inexplicable as to how without bringing a closure to the pending document presented as early as March, 1999 for registration of the sale deed by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 41 allowed registration of three parcels of the land on 29.04.2013 in favour of the petitioner’s vendors namely A.Maheswaran and K.Mahalingam vide document Nos.2544/13, 2545/13 and 2546/13 contrary to the order dated 29.10.2009 in W.P.No.514 of 1999.
125.The 2nd Respondent ought to have kept in mind the orders passed by the Principal Bench of the High Court in W.P.No.514 of 1999 putting an embargo on further registrations of the property which were pending registration and in respect of which no documents were presented by the erstwhile management of the 3rd respondent.
126.In fact, subsequent sale could have been made only by the Official Receivers along with the Special Officer appointed by the State Government with the sanction and permission of the High Court in W.P.No.514 of 1999.
127.Thus, there has been a flagrant violation of the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Principal Bench of the High Court in WP No 514 of 1999 by the concerned Sub Registrar who registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner’s vendors. Possibly similar transaction may have been registered contrary to the aforesaid order of the Court . http://www.judis.nic.in 42
128.This aspect therefore needs to be departmentally probed and examined and if there was any deliberate connivance and lack of probity on the part of the concerned officers in facilitating the registration of the sale deeds dated 29.02.2013 and other documents in favour of the petitioners vendor namely, A.Maheswaran and K.Mahalingam and others, suitable action should be initiated against them in accordance with the applicable Departmental Rules and land retrieved.
129.The concerned Sub Registrar ought to have refused registration of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner’s as there was a restraint order of the Court in W.P No.514 of 1999.
130.Therefore, without notice to the Joint Receivers appointed by this court in the W.P.514 of 1999, the deeds that were registered in favour of the petitioner’s vendors will not entitle the petitioner the relief.
131.If the petitioner has any grievances, she has to recover the amount from her vendors namely A.Maheswaran and K.Mahalingam http://www.judis.nic.in 43 only. She cannot force another registration to legitimise fraud played by her vendors on the Court.
132.In the light of the view aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view the present Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed.
133.The Joint Receivers have rendered services pursuant to the order of this court on 30.03.1999 in W.P No. 514 of 1999. They have represented the interest of the 3rd respondent for last 20 years.
134.The 3rd respondent Society has become defunct and its affairs have not been revived. Therefore, it has to be wound up and dissolved under the provisions of the T.N. Societies Registration Act, 1975.
135.The Joint Receivers have been given the power of liquidators to be appointed by the Registrars under the Act. Therefore, the steps taken by them hitherto shall be treated as steps taken under the Act.
136.Under Sections 43 of Act, after completion of winding up, http://www.judis.nic.in 44 the liquidator has to give an account of the winding-up showing how the winding-up has been conducted and how the property of the registered society has been disposed of, and call a general meeting of the registered society for the purpose of placing before it the accounts and giving any explanation in respect thereof.
137.Therefore, the Joint Receivers shall file a detailed report as is contemplated in Section 43 of the Act and call for a general meeting of the members as per the procedure prescribed under the Act within a period of six months of this order to bring a closure to the case.
138.Surplus, assets and land if any of the 3rd respondent remaining including the subject land and other land shall be dealt by the Registrar in the manner prescribed under the Act.
139.Thus, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed with the following observations:-
i. The Superintendent of Police is directed to initiate appropriate action based on the complaint dated 30.04.2015 given by the http://www.judis.nic.in Joint Receiver.45
ii. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department is also directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the concerned Sub Registrar who permitted to transfer and registration of the documents vide Document No.2544/13, Document No.2545/13 and Document No.2546/13 in favour of the vendors of the petitioner namely K.Maheswaran and A.Mahalingam after a through departmental enquiry.
iii. They shall also see if there were any other registration made contrary to the orders in W.P.No.514 of 1999 and if so take appropriate action.
iv. The 2nd respondent and his counter parts in the State are directed to register all the sale deeds presented for registration of land by the 3rd respondent in its favour and complete the process within a period of two months forthwith.
v. The Joint Receivers shall prepare and file a detailed report and call for a meeting of the general body of the members of the 3rd respondent for the purpose of Section 43 of the T.N. Societies Registration Act, 1975.
vi. The Joint Receivers have rendered services and were fixed a initial remuneration. They may file appropriate memo in W.P No.514 of 1999 to bring a closure.
http://www.judis.nic.in vii.Final order dissolving the 3rd Respondent shall duly brought to 46 the notice of the Court in W.P No.514 of 1999.
viii.The Registrar acting under the T.N. Societies Registration Act, 1975 shall deal with the surplus assets of the 3rd respondent as is contemplated under the Act.
ix. Liberty is given to the petitioner to work out the remedy against her vendors in accordance with law.
x. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order in W.P No. 514 of 1999.
04.06.2019
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
jen
To
1.The District Registrar,
Trichy.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Lalgudi, Ariyalur District.
3.Official Receiver,
M/s.Kalimaghal Sabha,
Office at New No: 17 (Old No.48),
North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.
http://www.judis.nic.in
47
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
Pre-delivery order in
W.P(MD)Nos.17794
& 17795 of 2014
04.06.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in