Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
M. Baskar - Appellants
Vs.
Sub-Registrar, Padappai, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 4023 of 2011, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 and 1 to 3 of 2014
Decided On: 10.12.2014
Registration Act – Sections 17, 71, 72 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 21 Rule 97, Order 21 Rule 101 – Decree for partition – Aggrieved over the registration of the document bearing Doc. in respect of the property which is the subject matter of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA pending on the file of this Court and contrary to the orders made by this Court therein, petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, seeking to quash the same – Held, It is contended that despite the petitioner raised objections and intimated the first respondent by way of a detailed representation dated 22.12.2010 prior to the registration of the document and specifically requested to refuse the registration, however, the first respondent, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, resorted to register the same. – In fact, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 which enables the Registering Authority to refuse registration of the document presented for registration, but under Section 71 of the Registration Act, the registering authority is duty bound to consider the objections raised by the party opposing the registration and pass appropriate orders by recording his reasons which is appealable under Section 72 of the Registration Act. – Of-course it is true that the Registering Authority is bound to enquire into the issues whether the documents presented before it for registration purpose, are fraudulent in nature and in case it is so, to cancel the registration. – But in this case, before the first respondent, the document, i.e. a compromise decree granted by a Court of law was placed before him for registration and he cannot be expected to go into the veracity of the said document. – A perusal of the representation made to the first respondent, dated 22.12.2010 would show that the petitioner has raised objection, stating that the matter is absolutely sub-judice and the title to the property in dispute is yet to be decided afresh by the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu as per the judgment given by this Court in CMA 2785 of 2010. – These are all the matters concern with the Court of law and not with the Sub Registrar and he cannot act as an judicial authority to probe the legal matters which are exclusively within the domain of a Court of law. – It is settled law that the Registering Authority is not empowered to go into the title disputes, except to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the persons who are party to the document that has been presented to him for registration. – This Court, by judgment dated 2785 of 2010 in CMA No. 2785 of 2010 has recognized the petitioner as an obstructer and protected his right and interest over the disputed property and specifically directed the Court below to decide all the questions relating to right, title or interest arising between the parties and decide the same afresh after giving notice to the petitioner. – Therefore, it is for the petitioner to get along with the matter sub judice before the Court below and thereafter work out his remedy, if he succeeds in the manner known to law. – For the reasons mentioned supra, Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out the case for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the registration of the document in Doc. No. 6775 of 2010 dated 24.12.2010 and to cancel the registration of the same. – Writ Petition Dismissed
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
1. Aggrieved over the registration of the document bearing Doc.No.6775 of 2010 dated 24.12.2010 in respect of the property which is the subject matter of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA No. 2785 of 2010 pending on the file of this Court and contrary to the orders made by this Court therein, dated 30.11.2010, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, seeking to quash the same. The brief facts are that the respondents 3 and 4 herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 141 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu against the respondents 5 and 6 herein, seeking a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and allot each share to the respondents 3 to 6. Pending disposal of the above said suit, the respondents 3 and 4 filed another suit in O.S. No. 91 of 2007 in respect of the same property, on the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram, against the respondents 5 and 6 herein and also against the writ petitioner and Others, seeking declaration, to declare the sale deed in document No. 4177 of 2006, dated 19.7.2006 executed by one A.V. Padmanabhan in favour of the writ petitioner is illegal, null and void and permanent injunction restraining the writ petitioner and Others from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter, while the suit in O.S. No. 91 of 2007 was in pending for trial, the respondents have filed a joint memo of compromise on 28.1.2008 in O.S. No. 104 of 2007 and sought for decreeing the suit pursuant to the terms of compromise. Accordingly, while recording the same, the said suit OS 104 of 2007 was decreed preliminarily in terms of the compromise. The respondents 3 and 4 continued to proceed with the suit in O.S. No. 91 of 2007 filed by them against the writ petitioner and Others. After obtaining the final decree for partition, the respondents 3 and 4 moved E.P. No. 19 of 2009 for taking delivery of possession of the suit property, along with execution applications in E.A. Nos. 228 to 231 of 2010, seeking for police protection, break open the lock, demolition of compound wall and disconnection of electricity service connection and for removal of the writ petitioner, who had been mentioned as an "obstructer". It appears that all the above said four execution applications were ordered by the executing Court. Pursuant to the same, while the bailiff was effecting the execution of the order, dated 8.9.2010 in E.A. No. 231 of 2010 in E.P. No. 19 of 2009 for removal of the obstructor/writ petitioner, he rushed to this Court by filing CMA No. 2785 of 2010, claiming that he has been in possession of the property and the respondents 3 to 6 have colluded and obtained fraudulent decree of compromise and since his right and title is involved in the suit property by virtue of sale deed, a notice under Form No. 40 of Appendix E as per the provisions under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC ought to have been ordered to the writ petitioner and after serving such notice, the executing Court ought to have adjudicated the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. By judgment, dated 30.11.2010, this Court allowed the said civil miscellaneous appeal, while setting aside the impugned order of removal of obstructor and directed the executing court to issue notice to the writ petitioner and as per Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and decide all the questions relating to right, title or interest of both parties over the suit property.
2. While that be so, it appears that the respondents 3 to 6, pursuant to the compromise decree in the suit in OS 104 of 2007, got registered the final decree proceedings in respect of the suit property under Document No. 6775 of 2010 on 24.12.2010. Aggrieved over the registration of the above said document, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, inter alia, stating that being a Registering Autho
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
