BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04/12/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
W.P(MD)No.11196 of 2008
K.Sankar Raj . . . Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli District.
2. Subbammal . . . Respondents
PRAYER
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to register
the Sale Deed dated 05.09.2008, relating to the land located in Punja Survey
No.437D, Kallapakulam Village, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District and to
release the same.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen
^For Respondent ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu
No.1 Spl.Govt.Pleader
* * * *
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to
register the Sale Deed dated 05.09.2008, relating to the land located in Punja
Survey No.437D, Kallapakulam Village, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District and to
release the same.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
Mr.R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf
of the first respondent.
3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition, is to the effect that the petitioner presented the sale deed
dated 05.09.2008 executed by the second respondent before the first respondent
viz., the Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil; however the first respondent is not
registering the said document. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader by drawing the attention of this
Court to Section 5 of the Patta Pass Book Act would develop his argument that in
view of Section 5 of the Patta Pass Book Act, the Sub Registrar has got the
right to refuse to register the document, unless the ingredients of that Section
5 are fulfilled
5. However, the counsel for the petitioner would correctly and
convincingly submit that as per the decision of this Court in Pandurangan v. The
Sub Registrar, Reddiarpalayam reported in 2007 (1) CTC 641, the Sub-Registrar
cannot refrain from registering the document which is otherwise registrable in
accordance with Section 34(3) of the Registration Act, 1908. An excerpt from
it, would run thus:
“13.In particular, the scope of any enquiry to be conducted by the
Registering Officer is circumscribed by sub-section (3) of Section 34 which
reads as follows:
“(3)The Registering Officer shall thereupon-
(a)enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons 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, assign or
agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.”
14.In simple terms, the enquiry to be made by the Registering Officer is
(i) on the factum of execution of the document, (ii) the identity of the person
who claims to have executed the document, and (iii) the right of the person who
appears as a representative, assignee or agent of the executant.”
6. Hence, in view of the Judgment of this Court, the Sub Registrar has to
restrict his scope of enquiry only as per Section 34(3) of the Registration Act,
which is a Central Enactment and accordingly the Sub Registrar is expected to
deal with it.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the first respondent
viz., the Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil is directed to register the document and
release it. In the event of undervaluation, he is at liberty to adhere to
Section 47-A of the Registration Act and yet he has to release the document
after making necessary endorsements as found set out in the decision
of this Court in B.Rajappa and another v. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Madras and others reported in 2002(3) CTC 544.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
smn
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli District.