Loading...

K.Krishnamoorthy vs The Sub Registrar on 14 July, 2005

Madras High Court
K.Krishnamoorthy vs The Sub Registrar on 14 July, 2005
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

DATED: 14/07/2005  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN         

W.P.No.1736 of 2000  

K.Krishnamoorthy                               .. Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Sub Registrar
   Sankari, Salem District.

2. K.P.Rakkiya Gounder  

3. R.Madeswaram   

4. C.Muthusamy  

5. P.K.Kandasamy  

6. K.Palaniappan                                .. Respondents

        PRAYER:   Petition  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.

For Petitioner :       Mr.V.N.Mohanraj

For Respondents:       Mr.E.Sampathkumar  
                        Government Advocate
                        for 1st respondent
                        Mr.Thirumalaisamy
                        for respondents 4 to 6

:ORDER  

The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the respondents ending with the order of the first respondent in
Objection Petition No.2/99, dated 10.2.1999, to quash the same and to direct
the first respondent herein to cancel the registration in Document Nos.135 to
137, dated 11.2.1999 on the file of the first respondent.

2. According to the petitioner he entered into a Sale Agreement with
the second respondent on 30.11.1998 to sell the House Site in Survey
Nos.81/2B10, 81/6C1 of an extent of 6293 sq.ft in Padaveedu Village,
Tiruchengode Taluk. Even though the petitioner executed a General Power of
Attorney on 30.11.1998 in favour of the third respondent and the same was
registered as Document No.204 of 1998, he cancelled the said General Power of
Attorney on 9.2.1999 under a registered deed, viz., Document No.22 of 1999.
Alleging that in spite of cancelling the General Power of Attorney executed in
favour of the third respondent, the second and third respondents executed the
sale deed in favour of respondents 4 to 6, registered as Document Nos.135, 136
and 137 of 1999 on the file of the first respondent on 11.2.1999, the
petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

3. Mr.V.N.Mohanraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in spite of a valid objection made by the petitioner, the first respondent had
not enquired into the matter and thus refused to exercise the power conferred
under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as under:
“Section: 34 – Enquiry before registration by registering officer:
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43,
45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act,
unless the person executing such document, or their representatives, assigns
or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer
within the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:

PROVIDED that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident
all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in
appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine
not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition
to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered.

(2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different
times.

(3) The registering officer shall thereupon-

(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it
purports to have been executed;

(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and
alleging that they have executed the document; and

(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assignee or
agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
(4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub-section (1) may
be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the
Registrar to whom he is subordinate.

(5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders.”
(emphasis supplied)

5. A bare reading of Section 34 of the Registration Act shows that
the Registering Officer has to (i) enquire whether or not the document was
executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed; and (ii)
satisfy himself of the right of the person, in case any person appears as a
representative, assignee or agent to execute the document.

6. Under such circumstances, suffice it to direct the first
respondent to enquire into the objections made by the petitioner, as referred
to above, in the light of Section 34 of the Registration Act, and to pass
appropriate orders, on merits, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Index   :       Yes
Website :       Yes

sasi


To:

1.  The Sub Registrar
Sankari, Salem District.









Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information