Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 277
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. Krishnakumar, R. Vijayakumar, JJ.
N.R. Krishnamoorthy Raja - Appellant
Vs.
The District Registrar (Admin), Virudhunagar & Others - Respondent
W.A (MD).No. 230 of 2024 & C.M.P. (MD) No.1999 of 2024
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S. Natarajan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Vijayakumari Natarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party must have title or standing to challenge property transactions, and attempts to claim property after adverse findings in Civil Court are not permissible.
Headnote:
Fraudulent Transfer - Property Dispute - Registration Act 1908, Section 68(2), Section 83 - The court discussed the fraudulent transfer of property and the power of the District Registrar to initiate action under Section 68(2) read with Section 83 of the Registration Act 1908. It also considered the legal principles established in previous judgments related to fraudulent registration and the authority of the registering authority to set aside fraudulent documents.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner claimed ownership of a property and filed a complaint to cancel a document transferring the property. The District Registrar dismissed the complaint, and the Writ Court upheld the dismissal, stating that the petitioner had no title over the property. The petitioner appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not have the title over the disputed property and therefore had no standing to question the sale deeds executed by the respondents. It also noted that the petitioner's attempt to initiate proceedings before the District Registrar was a second attempt to claim the property after the Civil Court had ruled against the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's title over the property, the validity of the sale deeds executed by the respondents, and the locus standi of the petitioner to question the sale deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's lack of title over the property meant that he had no standing to challenge the sale deeds executed by the respondents. It also emphasized that the petitioner's actions before the District Registrar were an attempt to claim the property after the Civil Court had ruled against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
JUDGMENT :
R. Vijayakumar, J.
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.19582 of 2021 by this Court, dated 22.12.2023.)
1. The writ petitioner is the appellant.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the District Registrar, dated 18.08.2021 and to direct him to initiate action based upon the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner on 03.06.2020. The Writ Court after considering the submissions on either side, had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner does not have any title over the property. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ appeal are as follows:
(i) The writ petitioner had claimed that he is the owner of certain extent of land in Survey No.297/1 in Rajapalayam Taluk. Alleging that the said property had been transferred illegally by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition on 20.12.2007 in favour of the 4th respondent and in turn, he had transferred the same in favour of the 5th respondent on 08.06.2015, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent herein on 03.06.2020 to cancel the said document and for initiating appropriate proceedings as against the concerned Sub Registrar for registering the said document.
(ii) The District Registrar under the order impugned in the writ petition after giving due opportunity to both the parties, had arrived at a finding that once a document had been registered, thereafter, raising a title dispute, an application cannot be presented for cancellation of the said document. The 1st respondent herein had further relied upon the Civil Court decree to arrive at a finding that the writ petitioner do not have any title over the said property.
(iii) The writ petitioner had challenged the said order in W.P(MD)No. 19582 of 2021 contending that adverse findings have been rendered as against the title of the 3rd respondent in the writ petition in O.S.No.329 of 1995. Despite the adverse findings, the 3rd respondent had proceeded to alienate the said property in favour of the 4th respondent and he in turn, had alienated the same in favour of the 5th respondent. Therefore, these two documents should be considered to be forged documents without any title whatsoever.
(iv) The respondents in the writ petition had contended that the suit filed by the writ petitioner for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed by the trial Court on 16.06.2000. The writ petitioner had filed A.S.No.23 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur and the appeal was also dismissed on 26.03.2003. The petitioner had preferred S.A.No.1040 of 2004, which was also dismissed by this Court on 18.07.2018. Hence, they contended that the writ petitioner do not have any title over the property and merely because some adverse findings have been rendered as against the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, that would not take away the title of the 3rd respondent. The respondents in the writ petition had also questioned the locus standi of the writ petitioner.
(v) The Writ Court after considering the submissions on either side, had dismissed the writ petition primarily relying the findings of the Civil Court as well as on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi whatsoever to question the documents that were executed by the 3rd and 4th respondents. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.
4. The Contentions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant are as follows:
(i) The learned Senior Counsel had primarily contended that the Writ Court ought not to have arrived at a finding that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. In fact, the petitioner as well as the respondents herein are parties to a civil suit, in which there is a specific finding that the 3rd respondent does not have any title over the suit schedule property. He further contended that the judgmen
