High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14-12-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.28547 of 2007andMP No.1 of 2007M.P.Marimuthu.. Petitioner vs1.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 District4.The Executive Officer Arulmighu Prasanna Venkataraman Swamy Thirukovil Kangeyam Kangeyam Taluk Erode District... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call forthe records of the 2nd respondent culminating in and by hisproceedings M.A.No.431/2007 dated 22.8.2007 and quash the sameand consequently direct the respondents 1 to 2 to register thesale deed dated 22.8.2007 and release the same after dueregistration to the petitioner.For Petitioner: Mr.M.M.SundareshFor Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal for RR1 and 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader for R3 Mr.B.Easwaran for M/s.Swaraj Associates for R4ORDERSeeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash theproceedings of the second respondent in M.A.No.431/2007 dated22.8.2007, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 2 toregister the sale deed dated 22.8.2007, and release the sameafter due registration, to the petitioner, this writ petition hasbeen brought forth.2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. TheCourt heard all the learned Counsel on either side.3.The case of the petitioner who seeks the relief, in shortis that by the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Kangeyam, dated27.1.1992, patta has been issued to 27 persons for the landssituated in Old Survey No.144/B corresponding to New SurveyNo.340/3 and 346/2 situated in Kangeyam Village; that the saidlands were purchased by one Karuppasamy and others; that thepetitioner has paid the consideration for a portion of the saidlands to two of its owners who have executed a sale deed in hisfavour on 22.8.2007; that the said document was placed forregistration on the very day; that the second respondent withoutregistering the document, has returned the same by stating thatas per the instructions of the first respondent, registrationcould be done only after waiting for 45 days and thereby, hasgiven time to H.R. & C.E. Department to produce the court's orderin that regard; that the petitioner came to know from the saidorder that there was an objection which appeared to have beenmade by the fourth respondent towards the registration; but, noobjection was raised at the time of the issuance of patta infavour of the vendor, and thus, as on today, the vendor of thepetitioner is not only the owner, but also in actual possessionof the property; that with the owners of the property, thepetitioner has also entered into sale transaction and paid theentire consideration; that while those documents are placed forregistration, the registering authority cannot adjourn theregistration calling for production of certain documents from theH.R. & C.E. Department, which raised objection, which is illegal,and under the circumstances, it becomes necessary that the orderpassed calling for production of the documents by the H.R. & C.E.Department and adjourning it for the purpose of registrationafter 45 days has got to be quashed and a direction be issued tothe second respondent to register the document as one required inlaw. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The petitioner's Counsel reiterated the averments in thepetition.5.The learned Special Government Pleader for the thirdrespondent H.R. & C.E. Department and also the learned Counselfor the fourth respondent, the Executive Officer of the Temple,have stated that it is a case where ryotwari patta has beengranted to the temple; that consequent upon the pattaproceedings, patta has been issued to the vendor; that the templewas not even a party in those proceedings; but, now at thisstage, ryotwari patta has been granted; that the property isvested with the temple, and under the circumstances, when theobjection was raised before the Sub Registry, the H.R. & C.E.Department was not given sufficient time to produce the Court'sorder in this regard. The learned Counsel would further add thata third party devotee of the temple filed a civil suit statingthat no encumbrance should be created on the property; that thesuit is also pending; that under the circumstances, the objectionraised by the H.R. & C.E. Department, was valid; that findingforce in the objection raised, the Department was also directedto 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 consideredopinion that it is a fit case where a direction has got to beissued. Admittedly, the document was placed by the petitioner,who has entered into transaction of sale with the vendor of theproperty in respect of a piece of land. The document is alsoplaced for registration before the second respondent on22.8.2007. Instead of registering the document, the secondrespondent seems to have called for documents from the H.R. &C.E. Department which raised objection for registration of thesame. The objection of the department was that the propertybelonged 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 forregistration and if the conditions for registration arefulfilled, a duty is cast upon the the Sub Registry to registerthe document. Instead, in the case on hand, the secondrespondent Sub Registrar has called for the documents from theH.R. & C.E. Department to sustain its objection. This Court isof the considered opinion that it is not a case where the SubRegistry could call for any documents/evidence from other partyin order to decide the issue between them in respect of the titleor possession over the same, and if it is allowed, then, in anygiven case where an objection is raised as to the title orpossession of the property, the Sub Registry will assume thepower of deciding those questions which is outside theircompetency, power and jurisdiction. Under the circumstances,such practice has got to be deprecated. Hence, it is a fit casewhere a direction has got to be issued to the second respondentSub Registrar to register the document, and if there is anydispute as to the question of title, the parties are at liberty https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to raise the same before the Court of civil law and not beforethe Sub Registrar as one done by the H.R. & C.E. Department inthis case. 7.Accordingly, a direction is issued to the secondrespondent to register the document, if the conditions for thepurpose of registration as one warranted in law, arefulfilled. This writ petition is disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected MP is closed. Nsv/Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo: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 District4.The Executive Officer Arulmighu Prasanna Venkataraman Swamy Thirukovil Kangeyam Kangeyam Taluk Erode District.+ 2 ccs to Government Pleader SR No. 74558 and 74364+ 2 ccs to M/s. Swaraj Associates, Advocate SR No. 74503+ 1 cc to Mr. M. M. Sundresh, Advocate SR No. 74234WP No.28547 of 2007KU(CO)SR/20.12.2007