Madras High Court
K.Ramalingam vs The Sub Registrar on 21 February, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.2.2012
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.18692 of 2009
K.RAMALINGAM [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 THE SUB REGISTRAR
KAVERIPATTINAM, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
2 T.S.AJOY
S/O LATE SUBBARAYA MANIYAKAR
3/40-A SRIRAMUTU NAGAR
PANNEERSELVAM STREET,
KAVERIPATTINAM
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT 635 112
(R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
30/11/09 BY KVJ IN MP 1/09 IN
W.P.NO.18692 of 2009) [ RESPONDENTS ]
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to his proceedings bearing K.No.415/2009 dated 10.07.09 quash the same and direct the respondent to register the Gift Deed bearing No.P3/2009 dated 13.3.2009.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian
For respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Additional Government Pleader
for R1
Mr.V.Nicholas
Mr.N.E.A. Dinesh for R2
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.7.2009, and to direct the respondent to register the Gift Deed bearing No.P3/2009, dated 13.3.2009.
3. The petitioner has stated that he is the owner of the land having an extent of 0.05.5 hectares, in survey No.11/1A, 1.33.5 hectares, in survey No.11/3A and 0.18.5 hectares, in survey No.12/3B of Kundallapatti village, Krishnagiri District. The petitioner's father late Kandasamy was a teacher in the Government Primary School at Kundallapatti. Therefore, the petitioner had proposed to gift the land belonging to him, to the Government Primary School at Kundallapatti, to provide sufficient space for its expansion. Accordingly, he had executed a Gift Deed, on 13.3.2009, in favour of the Chief Educational Officer and presented the said document for registration before the respondent. Having collected the requisite stamp duty and the registration fees, he had refused to register the same stating that a civil suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, relating to the property in question, is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it is not open to the respondent to refuse the registration of the Gift Deed, executed in favour of the Chief Educational Officer, krishnagiri, for the reason that a civil suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, in which he is one of the defendants.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the respondent had erred in concluding that the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, who is the second defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, had refused to accept the gift, made in respect of the lands in question.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that it is not open to the registering authority to go into the question of title of the lands in question and the alleged refusal of the donee to accept the gift.
7. He had also submitted that the refusal of the respondent to register the document is against the standing orders issued by the Government and the provisions of the Registration Act and the rules framed thereunder. He had placed before this Court the proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, dated 2.3.2005, which reads as follows:
"Standing orders 238 is substituted as under:
238 (a) An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering officer unless such order is to the registering officer.
(b) No document shall be accepted for registration where the registering officer has been impleaded as a defendant/respondent and restrained by the Court not to register any document in respect of any property. In such cases the registering officer, if insisted by the registrant, shall return the document noting the fact of the order of the Court in the "Check Slip".
2. This order shall be communicated to all registering officers immediately.
3. This order can be made applicable to pending documents."
8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the Gift Deed presented by the petitioner, for registration, on 13.3.2009, was assigned No.P3/2009, and kept pending without registration, as the civil suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, relating to the properties in question, was pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri. Further, the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, had refused to accept the gift made by the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the second respondent had submitted that the revenue records, including the patta relating to the properties in question, stand in the name of the second respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009. The 'Adangal' relating to the said properties shows that the properties are in the possession of the second respondent.
10. The learned counsel for the second respondent had further submitted that the Chief Educational Officer, krishnagiri, the donee, had refused to accept the gift made by the petitioner, in view of the fact that he had no title in respect of the suit properties. Therefore, the respondent had rightly rejected the request of the petitioner to register the Gift Deed bearing No.P3/2009.
11. The learned counsel for the second respondent had further submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.244 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, seeking declaration of his title in respect of the properties in question. However, he had withdrawn the said suit.
12. He had further submitted that the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, had not granted an order of interim injunction against the respondent herein, who is the defendant in the said suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, restraining him from registering the Gift Deed, as the Chief Educational Officer, krishnagiri, who is also a defendant in the said suit, had refused to accept the gift. Therefore, the refusal of the respondent to register the Gift Deed presented for registration, by the petitioner, cannot be held to be arbitrary and illegal.
13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted, at this stage.
14. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that the petitioner had filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.244 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, seeking declaration of his title, in respect of the properties in question, showing T.S.Ajay, as a defendant. Later, the petitioner had withdrawn the said suit. While so, T.S.Ajai had filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, showing the petitioner herein as the first defendant, the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, has been arrayed as the second defendant, the first respondent herein, namely, the Sub-Registrar, Kaveripattinam, and the State of Tamil Nadu, have been shown as the third and the fourth defendants, respectively. While so, the petitioner had presented a Gift Deed, on 13.3.2009, before the respondent for registration. However, the respondent had refused to number the Gift Deed presented by the petitioner, as the petitioner could not show, prima facie, that the lands in question, the subject matter of the Gift Deed, belong to the petitioner.
15. It is also seen that the Chief Educational Officer, krishnagiri, the second defendant in the said civil suit, had refused to accept the gift made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the refusal of the respondent to register the Gift Deed, dated 13.3.2009, presented by the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal.
16. Even though it is a well settled position in law that the registering authority cannot conduct a roving enquiry, in respect of the title of the properties sought to be registered, it would be obligatory on the part of the person presenting a document for registration to show, prima facie, that he is entitled to register such a document, in respect of the properties concerned. Further, in the present case, the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, the donee, had refused to accept the gift made by the petitioner, by way of the Gift Deed, dated 13.3.2009. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 10.7.2009 and to direct the respondent to register the Gift Deed, dated 13.3.2009, presented by the petitioner. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
lan To:
THE SUB REGISTRAR KAVERIPATTINAM, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT