M. Mohanraj v. The Sub Registrar,Office of the Sub Registrar,Velacherry,Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.10.2009CORAM THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE R. SUDHAKARW.P.No 27422 of 2006M. Mohanraj ... Petitioner-vs- 1. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Velacherry, Chennai.42.

Lakshmi Bai3. G. Hari(Impleaded as per order dt. 19.10.2009 in MP No.2/2009) ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent pertaining to Na.Ka.No.18/2006, by an order dated27.6.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to make necessary entries in his office records by deleting the transactions vide the sale Deeds documents Nos. 4567 of 1988 and 4568of 1988 both dated 8.12.1988 within the time limit. For Petitioner : Mr. P.N. Prakashfor M/s. Span AssociatesFor Respondents : Mr. V. Manohar Govt. Advocate – R1 No Appearance – R2 & R3

O R D E RThis writ petition is filed to quash the order dated27.6.2006 passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.18/2006 and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to direct the first respondent to make necessary entries in his office records by deleting the transactions vide the sale deed namelyDocument Nos. 4567/1988 and 4568/1988, dated 8.12.1988.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of property under sale deed dated 23.11.88 in document Nos. 4289/1988 registered with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Alandur, Chennai and is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property.

According to the petitioner, one Lakshbai, w/o Ethirajand G. Hari, S/o M. Gopalakrishnan sold the property based on fictitious documents and registered the same under Document Nos.4567/1988 and 4568/1988, both dated 8.12.1988 before the SubRegistrar, Alandur. Such sale was challenged by the petitioner before the Civil Court in O.S.No. 117 of 2001 and O.S.No. 118 of2001. The two sale deeds were declared null and void vide judgment and decree dated 30.6.2004.

The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order on 12.7.2004 after a delay of 12 days and the order was made ready on 2.9.2004 but received by the petitioner on 7.9.2004. Therewas further delay of 5 days. Thereafter, on the basis of this Court's order, a representation was made to the respondent/ SubRegistrar to make appropriate corrections in the records and to delete the transactions made in document Nos. 4567 and 4588 of 1998,both dated 8.12.1988 as per the order of the Civil Court. Suchapplication was rejected on 27.6.2006. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order. Besides, it is also stated that records are available only at the SubRegistrar Office, Alandur and the first respondent cannot make any correction or cancellation. The first reason for rejecting the request for cancellation in terms of the order of the Civil Court is based on Section 89 of the Registration Act, which reads as follows:-" Section 89 (2) Every Court granting acertificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall send a copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1. "

Section 89 of the Registration Act relates to grant of loan under the Land Improvement Loan Act 1883. For the purpose of recording the loan transaction, clause 2 of Section 89 mandates that forwarding of the certificate consequent to the judgment and decree https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Court. It does not speak about cancellation of sale deeds pursuant to order of Court. Therefore, Section 89 of the Actreferred to by the authority does not stand to reason. The order refusing to cancel the sale deed in terms of the Civil Court decreeis therefore misconceived and bad.

The second reason for rejection is delay. Insofar as the delay is concerned, as per Section 23 of the Act, the time granted for submitting the document is four months from the date on which, the decree or order was made by the Court. Section 23 and proviso of the Act reads as follows:-" Section 23. Time for presenting documents:-Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution: Provided that a copy of a decree or order may bepresented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final. "

In this case, the judgment and decree was passed on30.6.2004 and the application was made on 12.7.2004 after the delay of 12 days and the copy of the decree was made ready on 2.9.2004 and received on 7.9.2004. The petitioner made his representation within the four months period prescribed i.e. on 25.11.2004. Thisfact is not disputed. Therefore, in terms of proviso to Section 23of the Act, the application for cancellation of the documents as per the Civil Courts decision is well within the time. The reason given by the respondent/ authority is contrary to the above said provision of law. The authority has further stated that on 23.3.2006 in the statement given by the petitioner, he has accepted that there is adelay. In the statement given to the authority on 23.3.2006, the delay referred to is with regard to correction in the order of the High Court and that delay is not relatable to submission of the documents. The first communication is on 25.11.2004 and it is within time. Therefore, the said reason also cannot be put against the petitioner to reject his application.