IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14/12/2007
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
W.P. No.28547 of 2007
and
M.P. No.1 of 2007
M.P.Marimuthu ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration
Santhome High Road
Santhome
Chennai 600 004.
2. The Sub Registrar
Kangeyam
Kangeyam Taluk
Erode District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner
HR & CE Department
Kangeyam
Kangeyam Taluk
Erode District.
4. The Executive Officer
Arulmighu Prasanna Venkataraman Swamy Thirukovil
Kangeyam
Kangeyam Taluk
Erode District. ..Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified
mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent
culminating in and by his proceedings M.A.No.431/2007 dated
22.8.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents 1 to 2 to register the sale deed dated 22.8.2007
and release the same after due registration to the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.M.Sundaresh
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
for RR1 and 2
Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
Special Government Pleader
for R3
Mr.B.Easwaran for
M/s.Swaraj Associates
for R4
ORDER
Seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the
proceedings of the second respondent in M.A.No.431/2007
dated 22.8.2007, and consequently direct the respondents 1
to 2 to register the sale deed dated 22.8.2007, and release
the same after due registration, to the petitioner, this
writ petition has been brought forth.
2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused.
The Court heard all the learned Counsel on either side.
3.The case of the petitioner who seeks the relief, in
short is that by the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Kangeyam,
dated 27.1.1992, patta has been issued to 27 persons for the
lands situated in Old Survey No.144/B corresponding to New
Survey No.340/3 and 346/2 situated in Kangeyam Village; that
the said lands were purchased by one Karuppasamy and others;
that the petitioner has paid the consideration for a portion
of the said lands to two of its owners who have executed a
sale deed in his favour on 22.8.2007; that the said document
was placed for registration on the very day; that the second
respondent without registering the document, has returned
the same by stating that as per the instructions of the
first respondent, registration could be done only after
waiting for 45 days and thereby, has given time to H.R. &
C.E. Department to produce the court’s order in that regard;
that the petitioner came to know from the said order that
there was an objection which appeared to have been made by
the fourth respondent towards the registration; but, no
objection was raised at the time of the issuance of patta in
favour of the vendor, and thus, as on today, the vendor of
the petitioner is not only the owner, but also in actual
possession of the property; that with the owners of the
property, the petitioner has also entered into sale
transaction and paid the entire consideration; that while
those documents are placed for registration, the registering
authority cannot adjourn the registration calling for
production of certain documents from the H.R. & C.E.
Department, which raised objection, which is illegal, and
under the circumstances, it becomes necessary that the order
passed calling for production of the documents by the H.R. &
C.E. Department and adjourning it for the purpose of
registration after 45 days has got to be quashed and a
direction be issued to the second respondent to register the
document as one required in law.
4.The petitioner’s Counsel reiterated the averments in
the petition.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader for the third
respondent H.R. & C.E. Department and also the learned
Counsel for the fourth respondent, the Executive Officer of
the Temple, have stated that it is a case where ryotwari
patta has been granted to the temple; that consequent upon
the patta proceedings, patta has been issued to the vendor;
that the temple was not even a party in those proceedings;
but, now at this stage, ryotwari patta has been granted;
that the property is vested with the temple, and under the
circumstances, when the objection was raised before the Sub
Registry, the H.R. & C.E. Department was not given
sufficient time to produce the Court’s order in this regard.
The learned Counsel would further add that a third party
devotee of the temple filed a civil suit stating that no
encumbrance should be created on the property; that the suit
is also pending; that under the circumstances, the objection
raised by the H.R. & C.E. Department, was valid; that
finding force in the objection raised, the Department was
also directed to produce the documents within the stipulated
period, and hence, the writ petition has got to be
dismissed.
6.After hearing both sides, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is a fit case where a direction
has got to be issued. Admittedly, the document was placed
by the petitioner, who has entered into transaction of sale
with the vendor of the property in respect of a piece of
land. The document is also placed for registration before
the second respondent on 22.8.2007. Instead of registering
the document, the second respondent seems to have called for
documents from the H.R. & C.E. Department which raised
objection for registration of the same. The objection of
the department was that the property belonged to the temple,
and Ryotwari patta has also been issued, and hence, it
should not be registered. Now, at this juncture, it is
pertinent to point out that when a document is placed for
registration and if the conditions for registration are
fulfilled, a duty is cast upon the the Sub Registry to
register the document. Instead, in the case on hand, the
second respondent Sub Registrar has called for the documents
from the H.R. & C.E. Department to sustain its objection.
This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a
case where the Sub Registry could call for any
documents/evidence from other party in order to decide the
issue between them in respect of the title or possession
over the same, and if it is allowed, then, in any given case
where an objection is raised as to the title or possession
of the property, the Sub Registry will assume the power of
deciding those questions which is outside their competency,
power and jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, such
practice has got to be deprecated. Hence, it is a fit case
where a direction has got to be issued to the second
respondent Sub Registrar to register the document, and if
there is any dispute as to the question of title, the
parties are at liberty to raise the same before the Court of
civil law and not before the Sub Registrar as one done by
the H.R. & C.E. Department in this case.
7.Accordingly, a direction is issued to the second
respondent to register the document, if the conditions for
the purpose of registration as one warranted in law, are
fulfilled. This writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected MP is closed.
nsv/
To:
1. The Inspector General of Registration
Santhome High Road
Sahthome
Chennai 600 004.
2. The Sub Registrar
Kangeyam
Kangeyam Taluk
Erode District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner
HR & CE Department
Kangeyam
Kangeyam Taluk
Erode District
4. The Executive Officer
Arulmighu Prasanna Venkataraman Swamy Thirukovil
Kangeyam
Kangeyam Taluk
Erode District.