Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Ashok Chand - Appellant
Versus
Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1293, 1295 of 2021
Decided On : 16-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants V. Ragavachari, Eswar Kumar
For the Respondents: K. Karthik Jagannath, A.K. Sriram, S. Thangavel, Chetan Sagar, P.H. Arvind Pandian, M. Roshan Afiq
The registration authority may refuse registration of documents that are suspicious or fraudulent, aligning with public policy and legal integrity.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Registration Act, 1908 - Section 72 - Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1983 - Rule 162A - Writ petition challenging registration refusal of sale deeds - The registration authority refused registration citing lack of original title documents and ongoing legal encumbrances - Arguments presented involve ownership disputes and alleged fraud in recovery claims. (Paras 8, 10, 55, 62)
(B) Fraud and Public Policy - The court emphasized that documents presented for registration must be authentic and the authority has a duty to investigate suspicious circumstances - Failure to disclose true ownership and fraudulent practices led to dismissal of appeals. (Paras 48, 63)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought registration of sale deeds allegedly executed by a deceased property owner amid claims of fraud and attachment by a financial institution. Disputes arose concerning the authenticity of documents and relationships among parties involved.
Findings of Court:
The refusal to register the documents was upheld based on potential fraud, lack of original documents, and violation of public policy principles.
Issues: The main issues involved the legality of registration in light of fraudulent documents and the jurisdiction of the registration authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that registration authorities must refuse to register documents that appear fraudulent or detached from an authentic owner, underlining that public policy and morality play a crucial role in such decisions.
Result: Writ appeals dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to registration of sale deeds (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding lost title documents (Para 10 , 11 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. registration authority's due diligence (Para 12 , 18 , 59) |
| 4. allegations of fraudulent practices (Para 13 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. dismissal due to lack of credibility (Para 14 , 30 , 32 , 49) |
| 6. court observations indicating the serious nature of the allegations and surrounding facts. (Para 19 , 27 , 29) |
| 7. legal principles confirming refusal based on public policy and documented fraud. (Para 55) |
| 8. exercise of registration authority powers (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 9. conclusion and final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 64) |
JUDGMENT :
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
1. The Writ Petitioners are in appeal against the dismissal of the Writ Petitions filed by them by order dated 07.02.2020, wherein they had challenged the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the District Registrar (Admin IC) (in short, R2) seeking a consequential direction to R1 to R3, being the Inspector General of Registration, District Registrar (Admin IC) and Joint Sub-Registrar II to register documents bearing Nos. P127 and P128 of 2013 (in short, sale deeds in question) that had been kept pending registration.
2. The parties are referred to by their array in these appeals, which remains the same as in the Writ Petitions. One T.Subramaniam was running two spinning mills in Tiruppur. His wife Nallammal/R4 and son Madhiyazhagan/R5 were initially Directors in the company that was running the spinning mill. His son fell out with the father and stepped out of Directorship on 03.04.2002.
3. Suffice it to say that the relationship was not cordial between the father and son. R5 would allege that his father had been alienating properties belonging to the company and engaging in transactions that were contrary to law. The company in which the family members had been Directors, by name M/s. Nallam Maniam Textile (P) Limited (in short, company), had availed financial facilities from Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Coimbatore (in short, Bank).
4. The Directors had offered personal properties as collateral, to secure the loans. Since the documents which the appellants seek registration of, relate to the same property in respect of which title deeds were deposited with the DRT, the Schedule becomes a necessary detail, and has been recorded in this order as follows:
Tamil Nadu, Tirupur District, Tirupur Registration District, Tirupur-II Joint Sub Registrar (Previously) Palladam Taluk, Now Tirupur Taluk. All that piece and parcel of immovable property being property S.F.No.459 extent P.A.:2 Acres 55 cents along with common area and facilities attributable thereto which area includes right of Pathway and other Easement Right in 15, Velampalayam village, Electric Service 179-00-49 esiding S.C. No.601, Tariff No:4, Sanction Load 7.5 HP dated 07.03.2003, Two Bore wells.
| East of S.F. No. | 458 |
| South of S.F. No. | 445 |
| West of S.F. No. | 460 |
| North of S.F. No. | 461 |
Tamil Nadu, Tirupur District, Tirupur Registration District, Tirupur-II Joint Sub Registrar (Previously) Palladam Taluk, Now Tirupur Taluk. All that piece and parcel of immovable property situated at 15, Vellampalayam Village, E.B. Colony, Samundipuram S.F.No.461/6 extent P.A.:-0.09 ½ cents along with common areas and facilities attributable thereto which area includes right of Pathway and other Easement Right in 15, Velampalayam village
| East of Rukmani’s Land | |
| South of S.F. No. | 459 |
| West of Rukmani’s Land | |
| North of Rukmani’s Land |
(in short, property/property in question)
5. There were defaults leading to action being taken by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, Sarfaesi Act) to recover the outstandings. Original Applications were filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the title deeds of the property that had been offered as collateral, had been deposited with the DRT.
6. T.Subramaniam passed away on 01.
