Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1359
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C. SARAVANAN, J.
S. Geetha Ranjani - Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Trichy & Others - Respondents
W.P(MD)Nos. 17794 & 17795 of 2014
Decided On : 04-06-2019
For the Petitioner:C.B. Muralikrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M. Murugan GA, R. Vijayakumar, Advocate.
The registration of a sale deed does not confer title to the property, but merely creates a record of the transaction. The actual transfer of ownership takes place only when the sale deed is executed and delivered.
Headnote:
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 47 - SALE DEED - REGISTRATION - DELAY - EFFECT - REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED - SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPOINTMENT OF JOINT RECEIVERS - VALIDITY - REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED - WITHOUT NOTICE TO JOINT RECEIVERS - VALIDITY - TAMIL NADU SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1975 - WINDING UP OF DEFUNCT SOCIETY - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner purchased two parcels of land from her vendors who had purchased the same from the original vendor. The original vendor had earlier sold the entire parcel of land to the 3rd respondent, a defunct society, by a sale deed. The petitioner's vendors had managed to register the sale deeds in their favour despite orders of the Principal Bench of this Court in WP.No.514 of 1999. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to return the original sale deeds and to simultaneously refer the case under section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act for determination of the appropriate stamp duty payable by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the registration of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner's vendors was illegal and void as it was done contrary to the orders of the Court in WP.No.514 of 1999. The Court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought as she had failed to show that she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the original contract and the sale in her favour was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The Court also directed the Joint Receivers appointed by the Court to take steps to register the sale deeds of the 3rd respondent forthwith and directed the 2nd respondent to facilitate and complete the registration of the aforesaid said sale deeds in favour of the 3rd respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the registration of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner's vendors was valid and legal? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The registration of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner's vendors was illegal and void as it was done contrary to the orders of the Court in WP.No.514 of 1999. 2. The petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought as she had failed to show that she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the original contract and the sale in her favour was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with the following observations: i. The Superintendent of Police is directed to initiate appropriate action based on the complaint dated 30.04.2015 given by the Joint Receiver. ii. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department is also directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the concerned Sub Registrar who permitted to transfer and registration of the documents vide Document No.2544/13, Document No.2545/13 and Document No.2546/13 in favour of the vendors of the petitioner namely K. Maheswaran and A. Mahalingam after a through departmental enquiry. iii. They shall also see if there were any other registration made contrary to the orders in W.P.No.514 of 1999 and if so take appropriate action. iv. The 2nd respondent and his counter parts in the State are directed to register all the sale deeds presented for registration of land by the 3rd respondent in its favour and complete the process within a period of two months forthwith. v. The Joint Receivers shall prepare and file a detailed report and call for a meeting of the general body of the members of the 3rd respondent for the purpose of Section 43 of the T.N. Societies Registration Act, 1975. vi. The Joint Receivers have rendered services and were fixed a initial remuneration. They may file appropriate memo in W.P No.514 of 1999 to bring a closure. vii. Final order dissolving the 3rd Respondent shall duly brought to the notice of the Court in W.P No.514 of 1999. viii. The Registrar acting under the T.N. Societies Registration Act, 1975 shall deal with the surplus assets of the 3rd respondent as is contemplated under the Act. ix. Liberty is given to the petitioner to work out the remedy against her vendors in accordance with law. x. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order in W.P No.514 of 1999.
(Common Prayer in both W.Ps: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to return the original sale deeds dated 13.11.2013 & 14.03.2014 vide deeds of Sale Doc. Nos. P 201300161/ 2013 & P 201400032/2014 owned by the petitioner within a reasonable time.
By this common order both the writ petitions are being disposed.
2. Earlier, by two separate orders dated 05.11.2014, both the above writ petitions viz. W.P.(MD).Nos.17794 and 17795 of 2014 were disposed.
3. These present writ petitions were originally filed without impleading the 3rd respondent Kalaimaghal Sabha.
4. By the aforesaid order, the 1st and the 2nd respondents herein were directed to return the two documents and to simultaneously refer the case under section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act for determination of the appropriate stamp duty payable by the petitioner.
5. Both these orders dated 05.11.2014 were challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.260 and 1150 of 2016 by the 1st and 2nd respondents herein.
6. By a common order dated 19.09.2017, these two orders dated 05.11.2014 were set aside and the cases were remitted back to be decided afresh with a direction to implead the 3rd respondent M/s. Kalaimaghal Sabha, represented by Joint Receivers.
7. Thus, pursuant to the remand order in W.A.(MD).Nos.260 and 1150 of 2016, the petitioner herein amended the cause titles in the respective writ petitions and has impleaded the 3rd respondent herein. Pursuant to the impleading of the 3rd respondent, additional facts have been brought to the notice of the Court.
8. From the records, it is further noticed that these writ petitions were also dismissed on an earlier occasion on 31.10.2017 and were restored by an order dated 16.11.2017 and were directed to be listed for hearing.
9. These cases were earlier reserved by me while sitting in Madurai. Later, the case was listed for clarification through video conference on 28.02.2019.
10. Thereafter, the case was argued and reserved for passing orders. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent also requested time for filing written submission.
11. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent filed written arguments on 19.03.2019 before the Registry, Madurai High Court. Same was transmitted by the Registry on 08.4.2019.
12. Heard Mr. C. B. Murali Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, M. Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the 1st and the 2nd respondent and Mr. R. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written submission. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 22.10.2018.
14. The 2nd respondent in their counter affidavit signed on 22.10.2018 by Mrs. Hemalathabai, the incumbent officer occupying the seat of the 2nd respondent at the time of filing of the counter has stated that if the 3rd respondent has no objection and the registering authority will complete the registration of the pending document dated 13.11.2013 and 14.03.2014 executed in favour of the petitioner.
15. The 2nd respondent has further stated that after verifying the revenue records and other parent documents standing in the name of the original vendor the documents were registered by way of sale deed in document No.2544/13, 2545/13 and 2546/13 dated 29.04.2013 in favour of the Petitioner’s vendors.
16. The 2nd respondent has further stated that on verification of the documents it was noticed that the land belongs to the 3rd respondent who were subsequently impleaded in the present writ petitions and that if the 3rd respondent has no objection to the registration of the land in favour of the petitioner then they will comply.
17. The contesting respondent namely, the 3rd respondent has not filed a counter. However, the 3rd respondent has filed a detailed w
