2022 Supreme(SC) 397

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited – Appellant
Versus
S.P. Velayutham & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2752-2753 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 19662-19663 of 2021)
Decided on : 04-05-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Challenge to very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on execution, is congenital in nature.
(2) Examining whether Registering Authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly within jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226.
(3) Lack of jurisdiction is completely different from refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

Headnote:

(A) Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 32 and 33 – Registration of Power of Attorney (PoA) – Word “authenticated” is not to be understood to be the same as “registered” – Registering Officer has duty to see whether the document presented for registration has been presented in accordance with law or not – Registration of a document comprises of three essential steps among others – They are, (i) execution of document, by executant signing or affixing his left hand thumb impression; (ii) presenting the document for registration and admitting to Registering Authority execution of such document; and (iii) act of registration of document – In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without relief of declaration that registered document is null and void, what gets challenged, is a combination of all three steps in the process of execution and registration – Challenge to very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on execution, is congenital in nature – First two steps in process of registration are substantial in nature, with parties to document playing role of lead actors and Registering Authority playing a guest role in second step – Third step is procedural in nature where Registering Authority is lead actor. [Rules 48 and 49 of Tamilnadu Registration Rules, 1983](Paras 18, 41, 49, 50 and 52)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 32 and 33 – Registration of Power of Attorney (PoA) – In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a registered document is null and void, all three steps which comprise entire process of execution and registration come under challenge – If a party questions very execution of a document or right and title of a person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy will only be to go to civil court – But where a party questions only failure of Registering Authority to perform his statutory duties in course of third step, it cannot be said that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted – When a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was utter failure on part of Registering Authority to stick to mandate of law, Court merely cancels act of registration, but does not declare very execution of document to be null and void – Declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within domain of civil court, but it does not mean that High Court cannot examine the question whether or not Registering Authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law – If something is required by law to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not otherwise – Examining whether Registering Authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly within jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 – However, High Courts may refuse to exercise jurisdiction in cases where violations of procedure on part of Registering Authority are not gross or violations do not shock conscience of Court – Lack of jurisdiction is completely different from refusal to exercise jurisdiction. (Para 53)

Facts of the case:

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, to whom Indian Bank assigned the loans and the underlying security of a particular borrower, has come up with the above appeals challenging judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, reversing the judgment of a Single Judge of Court, by which Single Judge held the registration of a Sale-deed by the Registering Authority to be null and void - The limited question that arises for consideration is as to whether the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court by the appellant was right, especially when civil suits at the instance of third parties are pending and when the appellant had already been directed by this Court, in proceedings arising under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to move the civil court?

Findings of Court:

If the Registering Officer under the Act is construed as performing only a mechanical role without any independent mind of his own, then even Government properties may be sold and the documents registered by unscrupulous persons driving the parties to go to civil court. Such an interpretation may not advance the cause of justice.

Result : Appeals allowed.