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.
