Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
Pandurangan
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry & Others
Review Application No.115 of 2008 & Writ Petition No.19418 of 2008
Decided on: 05-10-2009
(B)Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908)-Sec.34, 35, 69-Registration-Object-Fraudulent document-Main objects of Law of Registration are to provide a conclusive proof of genuineness of document, afford publicity to transaction, prevent fraud, afford security of title deeds and facility of proving titles in case the original deeds are lost or destroyed.
The main objective of Law of Registration is to provide a conclusive proof of genuineness of document, afford publicity to transaction, prevent fraud, afford facility for ascertaining whether a property has already been transacted and afford security of title deeds and facility of proving titles in case the original deeds are lost or destroyed. Para 10
(C)Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908)-Sec.34, 35, 69-Registration-Fraudulent document-Refusal-Registration authorities-Power to refuse- Registering Authority has to act in a judicious manner, so as to prevent any fraud being committed by any party, while registering any document.
The Registering Authority is required to act in a judicious manner, so as to prevent any fraud being committed by any party, while registering any document. Power has been conferred on the Registrar under Section 68 to superintend and control Sub-Registrars in whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate. This balance and check system has been provided for under the Act to achieve the avowed object of the Act, to avoid any fraud being played by any party. Para 13
(D)Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908)-Sec.69-Registration-Registration authorities-Superintendence- Subject to the approval of the State Government, the Inspector General is empowered to make Rules regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and sub-Registrars and the Registrar is empowered to superintend and control the Sub-Registrars.
A perusal of the above Section would make it undoubtedly clear that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has conferred wide powers on the Inspector General to make Rules coping in pace with the time and situation, subject, of course, to the approval of the said Rules by the Government, as has been contemplated under sub-section (2). Under Section 69(1)(g), the Inspector General was empowered to make Rules regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and sub-Registrars. The Registrar is empowered, under Section 68 to superintend and control Sub-Registrars. Para 15
(E)Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908)-Sec.69-Registration-Fraudulent document-Refusal-Registration authorities-Superintendence- District Collector has no power to restrain the District Registrar from registering a document.
The District Collector ought not to have issued any ’instructions’ to the District Registrar, since he is not empowered so under the Registration Act, but should have only forwarded the complaint and the enquiry report to the District Registrar, further requiring him ’to act in the manner required under law’. Para 25
Writ Petition No.19418 of 2008 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Rule 54 of the Puducherry Registration Rule, 1969 as amended by Notification No.3880/Rev/C3/2004, dated 8. 2004 published in the Gazette of Pondicherry, dated 8. 2004 as ultra vires the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, invalid and illegal).
Common Order : (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.)
The petitioner herein contended that he entered into an agreement on 7. 2004 with one Shankar for the purchase of a vacant land measuring an extent of about 83,200 sq.ft. in R.S.No.118/1 in Pethuchettipatti village, Karuvadikuppam Revenue village, situate within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar oaf Reddiarpalayam, Union Territory of Pondicherry and the said agreement of sale has also been registered as Document No.3724 of 2004 in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Reddiarpalayam, but, when the petitioner made enquiries in the office of the first respondent /Sub Registrar, Reddiarpalayam, Pondicherry in February, 2006, regarding the guideline value of the property, for the purpose of purchase of stamp papers, he came to know about a communication dated 111. 2005 sent by the District Collector, Pondicherry, instructing the second respondent to issue suitable instructions to the first respondent to withhold the registration of any sale transaction in respect of the lands in R.S.Nos.117 and 118 of the said village. It is his further contention that he had applied for a loan to the Indian Overseas Bank and that the Bank had formally agreed to sanction the loan and that in view of the impugned communication, he was not able to get the sale deed registered, leading to the cancellation of the provisional sanction of the loan.
2. In these circumstances, challenging the said communication dated 111. 2005 sent by the District Collector to the second respondent/District Registrar, Pondicherry, the petitioner herein has filed W.P.No.12577 of 2006 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 11. 2006, has allowed the said writ petition, resulting in filing of Writ Appeal No.13 of 2007 by the respondents.
3. At the time of hearing of the said writ appeal, it was brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry that chitta which was obtained in favour of Mrs.Thayalnayagi, the mother of Shankar, who has entered into the sale agreement with the petitioner, in respect of the property situate in R.S.No.118/1 in Pethuchettipatti, Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village in Oulgarpet Municipal Limit was cancelled and as against which, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.22942 of 2007 and the same is pending on the file of this Court. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) that if the order of cancellation of patta is set aside by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, the writ petitioner can present the document for registration on the basis of the sale agreement. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the sale deed has to be registered on the basis of the chitta granted in respect of other lands situate in the above said survey number in favour of Thayalnayagi. In those circumstances, we have allowed the said writ appeal filed by the respondents/Government of Pondicherry, holding that unless and until the cancellation of patta is set aside by this Court in the above said pending writ petition, the respondent/petitioner has no power to execute the sale deed in his favour.
4. This decision of us is called for review by the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ appeal was allowed on the basis that he is the owner of the property in issue, whereas the writ petitioner was actually the proposed purchaser under a registered sale agreement.
5. Before entering into discussing the other aspects of the case, it must be made clear that in the judgment dated 14. 2008, our intention was to in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
