Madras High Court
S.Geethan C.Winson vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 5 July, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.07.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.21145 of 2011 S.Geethan C.Winson ... PETITIONER -vs- 1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004. 2. The Sub-Registrar, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District .. Respondents. Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue set of Guidelines / Circular in the light of Section 69(1)(j) of the Indian Registration Act by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arivudainambi For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakhumar Addl. Govt. Pleader ***** O R D E R
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue set of Guidelines / Circular in the light of Section 69(1)(j) of the Indian Registration Act by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2011.
2. Section 69 of the Registration Act reads as under:
"69. Power of Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules -
(1) The Inspector General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government, and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act-
(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents;
(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to which the books may be kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any other electronic form under sub-section (1) of Section 16-A;
(b) declaring what languages shall be deemed to be commonly used in each district;
(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized under section 21;
(d) regulating the amount of finds imposed under sections 25 and 34, respectively;
(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the registering officer by section 63;
(f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make memoranda of documents;
(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and Sub Registrars of the books kept in their respective offices under section 51;
(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in sub-section (2) of section 88 may be presented for registration;
(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos.I, II, III and IV, respectively;
(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration offices; and
(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub-Registrars.
(2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the State Government for approval, and, after they have been approved, they shall be published in the Official Gazette, and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
3. The reading of Section 69 shows, that no such rules, as sought by petitioner, can be directed to be framed. It is the discretion of the Inspector General of Registration to make rules. It is not open to petitioner either to file representation or approach this Court for issuance of such direction.
4. The petitioner is a prospective buyer of land comprised in S.Nos. 1875 to 2124 of North Valliyoor Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District for expansion of his plantation and agricultural activities. The petitioner presented a sale deed dated 19.04.2011 for registration, which was registered as Document No.P39/2011 by the second respondent. The sale deed was executed on behalf of the registered owner, through a power of attorney.
5. It is not disputed by petitioner, that the registered power of attorney, executed on 25.09.2009, was revoked on 12.02.2010, whereas the sale deed was got registered on 19.04.2011, i.e., after the Power of Attorney stood revoked, therefore, the person executing the sale deed, was not the person, who was competent to represent the vendor.
6. It was on account of the fact, that the sale deed was executed by the person, who had no legal authority to represent the vendor, that the Sub-Registrar has not released the document to petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that subsequent to cancellation of the Power of Attorney, a fresh power of attorney was executed in favour of the executant of sale deed on 25.02.2010. However, it is not disputed, that the power of attorney dated 25.02.2010 is not registered.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that under Section 18 of the Registration Act, the registration of power of attorney is optional, therefore, non registration of power of attorney cannot render sale deed as invalid, which could entitle the Sub-Registrar to refuse to return the registered document to petitioner, as the petitioner is bonafide purchaser of the property, therefore, should not be harassed by the second respondent on technical ground of want of registration of power of attorney.
9. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted case of petitioner, that the registered power of attorney executed in favour of the attorney holder was revoked vide revocation deed dated 12.02.2010, therefore, as on date of registration of document, the power of attorney holder did not have any valid power of attorney to represent the true owner.
10. Once the person representing the true owner was not genuine, it was always open to the Sub-Registrar not to return the document. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that registration of power of attorney is optional also cannot be accepted, though it is not disputed, that unregistered power of attorney is valid, but where the attorney has the right to transfer the immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-, then it is compulsorily required to be registered. The person holding unregistered power of attorney, has no right to transfer immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that under Section 18, it is only optional, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner, on the basis of unregistered power of attorney, is seeking to get the immovable property, worth more than Rs.100/- transferred, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of respondents in not handing over the document, as it has not been executed by the person competent to execute the sale deed.
12. As already observed above, it is not open to this Court to issue any direction to respondent no.1 to frame rules under Section 69, as it is for the respondent no.1 to consider and decide about framing of rules.
13. No merits. Dismissed.
14. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.07.2012 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar VINOD K.SHARMA,J., ar To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District W.P.No.21145 of 2011 05.07.2012