P.Rajagurusamy v. District Registrar Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 9-10-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.1700 of 2007andMP No.2 of 2007P.Rajagurusamy.. Petitioner vs1.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Alandur at Nanganallur Chennai 600 061.2.The District Registrar Registration, Saidapet Chennai 600 015.3.The Inspector General ofRegistration Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.4.Vasantha5.R.Rajakumari6.R.Premkumar7.J.Rajendrakumar8.Kasturi9.Arunkumar.. RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records ofthe first respondent and to quash the registration of thecancellation of the document No.2747 of 2005 dated 25.8.2005 bythe respondents 4 to 9 in favour of the petitioner and fourothers on 16.3.2005 bearing Document No.1456 of 2005 at theoffice of the first respondent herein.For Petitioner: Mr.V.R.KarthikeyanFor Respondents: Mr.V.Arun Additional GovernmentPleader for RR1 to 3ORDERInvoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitionerseeks a writ of certiorari to quash the registration of thecancellation of the document No.2747 of 2005 dated 25.8.2005executed by the respondents 4 to 9 in favour of the petitionerand four others on 16.3.2005 bearing Document No.1456 of 2005 atthe office of the first respondent herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. TheCourt heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also thelearned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3. 3.The case of the petitioner who seeks the writ, is that healong with four others entered into an agreement for purchase ofthe undivided share having an extent of 2.50 acres in Old PattaNo.7, Alandur Zamin, comprised in Survey Nos.5/1, 10/1, 17/1,18/1, 19/1, 13/1, 14/1, 45/1, 48/1, 89, 91, 93/2, 22, 23/1, 24/1,25/1, 26, 30/1, 37, 47/1, 61/1, 90, 92/2 and 94/2, SaidapetTaluk, from one R.Vasantha and five others for a valuableconsideration on 16.3.2005; that in order to verify the veracityof the vendor's statement, they sought for certified copies ofthe two settlement deeds; that they satisfied with the same; thatthey also sought for the encumbrance certificate for a period of20 years from 1.1.1942 to 31.5.1969 and also from 1.6.1969 to31.12.1986 for a period of 18 years wherefrom they found theproperty without any encumbrance whatsoever; that by way ofabundant caution, the agreement of sale was presented forregistration on 16.3.2005 by the purchasers as well as thevendors; that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was agreed between theparties as advance; that for the purpose of registration, a sumof Rs.6,00,000/- was shown as advance in the document itself;that the document was registered, but was kept pending for theproduction of the identity card of one person among the vendors;that it has also been produced; that even then, the delay wascaused; that the first respondent issued a receipt on 16.3.2005for the payment of registration fees of Rs.6,100/-; that thematter was pending; that while the matter stood thus, since theauthority did not return the document, a writ petition was filedin WP No.15702 of 2005 wherein there was a direction issued bythis Court to the respondent therein subject to the condition ofthe petitioner filing an undertaking to pay the stamp dutypursuant to Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act with furtherundertaking not to encumber or alienate the property in question;that even after the production of the same, it was kept pending;that the stamp duty has been paid; that while the matter stoodthus, he once again applied for encumbrance certificate on18.12.2006; that on receipt of the same, he came to know that adeed of cancellation was presented by the respondents 4 to 9 on25.8.2005; that following the same, the original document dated23.5.2005 has also been cancelled unilaterally; and that such anact was done with malafide intention.4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would furthersubmit that in view of Sec.32A of the Registration Act, there isno question of any unilateral cancellation of an agreement; thatby that act, much prejudice has been caused; and that under thecircumstances, the order of cancellation has got to be quashed byissuing a writ of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Contrary to the above contentions, the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader would submit that Sec.32A of the Act has beenamended only with effect from 28.6.2006; but, the agreement wasentered into on 16.3.2005; that the same was registered on23.5.2005; that such a cancellation has taken place on 25.8.2005which was prior to the amendment of Sec.32A on 28.6.2006; thatthe same was also not given retrospective effect; that under thecircumstances, the act of cancellation unilaterally done by thefirst respondent cannot be questioned, and hence, the writpetition has got to be dismissed.6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made. 7.This Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fitcase, where the relief could be granted by allowing the writpetition. It is not in controversy that the petitioner alongwith four others entered into an agreement for purchase of animmovable property mentioned in the document. The document wasalso dated 16.3.2005 and was placed for the purpose ofregistration. Though the document was registered on 23.5.2005,it was not returned. Hence, one Hussain filed WP No.15702 of2005, which was ordered. Pursuant to the same, the document wasreturned after the payment of the stamp duty due. While thematter stood thus, the respondents 4 to 9 made a deed ofcancellation which is the subject matter of challenge, and it wasalso registered, by which the earlier agreement dated 16.3.2005and registered on 23.5.2005, was cancelled. Now, at thisjuncture, it would be more apt and appropriate to reproduceSec.32A of the Registration Act, 1908, as follows:"32A Compulsory affixing of photograph, etc – Everyperson presenting any document at the properregistration office under Section 32 shall affix hispassport size photograph and finger prints to thedocument:Provided that where such document relates to thetransfer of ownership of immovable property, thepassport size photograph and the finger prints of eachbuyer and seller of such property mentioned in thedocument shall also be affixed to the document."8.A reading of the above provision would clearly indicatethat when the document relates to the transfer of ownership ofimmovable property, the passport size photograph and fingerprints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in thedocument, should be affixed to the document. In the instantcase, though the document in question is not one transferring theownership of immovable property, but only an agreement for saleentered into between the buyer and the seller, this provisionmaking the affixture of the photographs and finger prints of boththe buyer and the seller of the property in the document, can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also be extended to the same. This would equally apply to adocument for cancellation of an agreement for sale which isplaced for registration before the Sub Registry.9.Now, the contention put forth by the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader, is that Sec.32A of the Registration Act wasamended only on 28.6.2006; that it could not be givenretrospective effect, but only prospective effect, and under thecircumstances, the registration of the cancellation deed by thefirst respondent on 25.8.2005, which was prior to the amendment,cannot now be challenged. This contention, though attractive atthe first instance, cannot be countenanced in law for the reasonthat though the amendment has been made on 28.6.2006, this Courtis of the considered opinion that once there was an agreemententered into between the parties, and it has also been registeredon 23.5.2005, now it has been unilaterally cancelled at theinstance of one party even without notice, which would suffice toquash the same. If a bilateral agreement which was placed by theparties for registration, is allowed to be cancelled by way ofregistration of another document namely deed of cancellation,even without the other party being put on notice, will be notonly against the principles of law, but also against theprinciples of natural justice. Under the circumstances, such anact cannot have a sanction in law. Hence, the cancellation ofthe agreement dated 23.5.2005, by the first respondent, SubRegistry, has got to be necessarily quashed. Accordingly, it isquashed, and this writ petition is ordered. No costs.Consequently, connected MP is closed.nsv/Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Alandur at Nanganallur, Chennai 600 061.2.The District Registrar Registration, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.3.The Inspector General ofRegistration Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.62362+ 1 cc to Mr. V. R. Karthikeyan, Advocate SR No. 62313VRK(CO)SR/12.10.2007WP No.1700 of 2007