BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09/06/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P(MD)No.7728 of 2007 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2007 and 1 of 2008 T.Karnan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Deputy Inspector General (Registration), Jawan Bhavanam, West Veli Street, Near Regal Theatre, Madurai - 625 001. 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai Circle, Meenakshi Bhavanam, Tallakulam, Madurai - 625 002. 3.The Sub Registrar (Registration), Thirupparankundram, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned attachment before judgment notice dated 31.01.2004 in Na.Ka.No.13904/03 passed by the second respondent herein as well as the proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.240/2007 dated 27.04.2007 issued by the third respondent and quash the same and direct them to hand over the document No.P19/2006 to the petitioner and consequently, forbear the respondents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the petitioner. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.E.Elango for Mr.M.Ajmal Khan ^For Respondents... Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate. * * * * * :ORDER
The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition
averred that he purchased the property from one R.Viswanathan and other legal
representatives of V.S.Ramasubramaniam and settled the said property along with
the other properties by means of a settlement deed dated 18.11.2003 in favour of
his legal representatives namely, R.Venkatesh and R.Viswanathan. As already
stated above, the petitioner has purchased the property from one of the legal
representatives namely, R.Venkatesh. The petitioner averred that he produced
the document for registration before the Sub Registrar, Thirupparankundram and
the sale deed was registered on 21.02.2006 (document No.P19/2006), but the Sub
Registrar, Thirupparankundram in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.240/2007 dated
27.04.2007 has rejected the request of the petitioner stating that in view of
the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai
Circle dated 31.01.2004, with regard to the order of attachment before judgment,
he is not in a position to release the document namely, the sale deed of the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner, on enquiry, came to know that the Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Madurai Circle, vide proceedings dated 31.01.2004, had
attached the properties of M.Mayan, M.Vanmathi and V.S.Ramasubramaniam
(predecessors in title of the petitioner), invoking the Rule 126 of the Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, on the alleged ground of misappropriation of
the Co-operative Societies’ funds.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of
attachment dated 31.01.2004 passed by the second respondent does not disclose
any details as to when the orders were passed for recovery of amounts and the
said order is bereft of any material particulars. That apart, the order of the
third respondent dated 27.04.2007 merely relies on the communication emanated
from the second respondent based on which the third respondent has refused to
release the document.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has invited the attention
of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3.
5. The second respondent in his counter affidavit has averred that the
predecessor in title namely, V.S.Ramasubramaniam was the former President of the
Madurai Urban Co-operative Bank and in view of the misappropriation committed by
him, his properties came to be attached on 31.01.2004 and the petitioner herein
had purchased his property on 21.02.2006 after the attachment notice and as
such, he has no locus standi to question the said order of attachment.
6. The third respondent in his counter affidavit, has averred that the
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai Circle, who is the second
respondent herein, had requested the District Registrar, Madurai (South) in his
proceedings dated 04.02.2004 and 18.07.2005 to instruct the Sub Registrars not
to register any documents relating to the properties belonging to the following
persons, namely, V.S.Ramasubramaniam, M.Mayan, M.Vanmathi, R.Venkatasamy and
P.Raju. Therefore, in pursuance of the instruction from the superior official
and in obedience of the said instruction, he has not released the registered
document in favour of the petitioner.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
decision of this Court in R.Sreedher v. Registering Officer (District Registrar)
reported in (2008)1 MLJ 342.
8. The facts of the said case are that the petitioner therein had obtained
the sale deed which included the pond poramboke land of 32 cents. The
petitioner applied to the Revenue authority for grant of patta. The
Registering authority has refused to register the sale deed and withheld the
document on the ground that the local authority cannot issue patta in respect of
encroachments in water bodies. Challenging the vires, the above said writ
petition was filed. This Court while disposing, has taken into consideration
Section 22-A of the Registration Act which was struck down by the Division Bench
of this Court in the decision in Captain Dr.R.Bellie and another v. Sub-
Registrar, Registration Office, Sulur, Coimbatore District and others reported
in (2007) 3 MLJ 1025 : 2007(3) CTC 513. The learned Judge has also referred to
Rule 162 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules which provides for refusal on
certain grounds.
9. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the third
respondent can act only within the four corners of the rules framed therein and
he cannot traverse beyond the said Rule 162 of the Registration Rules. The
reasons assigned by the third respondent in the impugned proceedings will not
come under the Rule 162 and therefore, the act of the third respondent in
refusing to release the document, per se, is unsustainable in law.
10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents would
submit that in view of the misappropriation committed by the predecessors in
title of the petitioner, his property was rightly attached and the petitioner
has purchased the property from the legal representatives f the said
V.S.Ramasubramaniam and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the
impugned notice.
11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions on either side.
12. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules reads as follows:
“Rule 162: When registration is refused the reasons for refusal shall be
at once recorded in Book 2. They will usually come under one or more of the
heads mentioned below-
I.Section 19: That the document is written in a language which the
registering officer does not understand and which is not commonly used in the
district, and that it is unaccompanied by a true translation and a true copy.
II.Section 20: That it contains unattested interlineations, blanks,
erasures or alternations which in the opinion of the registering officer require
to be attested.
III.Section 21: (1) to (3) and Section 22: That the description of the
property is insufficient to identify it or does not contain the information
required by Rule 18.
IV.Section 21(4): That the document is unaccompanied by a copy or copies
of any may or plan which it contains.
V.Rule 32: That the date of execution is not stated in the document or
that the correct date is not ascertainable.
VI.Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 72, 75 and 77: That it is presented after the
prescribed time.
VII. Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43: That it is presented by a person who has
no right to present it.
VIII. Section 34: That the executing parties or their representatives,
assigns or agents have failed to appear within the prescribed time.
IX. Sections 34 and 43: That the registering officer is not satisfied as
to the identity of a person appearing before him who alleges that he has
executed the document.
X.Sections 34 and 40: That the registering officer is not satisfied as to
the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign, or agent so to
appear.
XI.Section 35: That execution is denied by any person purporting to be an
executing party or by his agent.
XII. Section 35: That the person purporting to have executed the document
is a minor, or idiot or a lunatic.
XIII. Section 35: That execution is denied by the representation or assign
of a deceased person by whom the document purports to have been executed.
XIV. Section 35 and 41: That the alleged death of a person by whom the
document purports to have been executed has not been proved.
XV. Section 41: That the registering officer is not satisfied as to the
fact of execution in the case of a will or of an authority to adopt presented
after the death of the testator or donor.
XVI. Section 25, 34 and 80: That prescribed fee or fine has not been paid.
XVII. Section 230(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act 43 of 1961): That
the prescribed certificate from the Income Tax Officer has not been produced.
XVIII. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of
Land) Act, 1961 (Act 58 of 1961): That the declaration has not been filed by the
transfer.
XIX. Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Registration)
Act, 1978 (Act 24 of 1978): That the statement has not been filed by the
transferror and transferee.”
13. A perusal of the above said rules would reveal that the reason
assigned by the third respondent in refusing to return the document, does not
come within the ambit of the above said rule and so also, under the Registration
Act. Therefore, in the absence of any legal sanction, it is not open to the
third respondent to withhold a document.
14. No doubt, Rule 126 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules,
1988, provides for raising of attachment, but the same Rule also provides as to
the manner of sale or attachment to be effected. The impugned order passed by
the second respondent did not disclose any reasons as to why the attachment was
effected. However, the counter affidavit of the second respondent says that the
property was attached since the predecessors in title of the petitioner alleged
to have misappropriated the funds of the Bank. What is not stated in the
impugned order cannot be improved by filing the counter affidavit.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons
assigned by the third respondent in the impugned proceedings on the face of it,
are unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.
16. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned
proceedings dated 27.04.2007 passed by the third respondent is quashed. The
third respondent is directed to return the sale deed
registered on 21.02.2006 to the petitioner. Liberty is also given to the
petitioner to challenge the impugned order of attachment passed by the second
respondent in a manner known to law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.
rsb
TO
1.The Deputy Inspector General
(Registration),
Jawan Bhavanam, West Veli Street,
Near Regal Theatre, Madurai – 625 001.
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
Madurai Circle, Meenakshi Bhavanam,
Tallakulam, Madurai – 625 002.
3.The Sub Registrar (Registration),
Thirupparankundram, Madurai.