Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2932
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
R.Shanmugapriya - Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar - Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.5301 of 2025
Decided on : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Aravindaraj
For the Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader, Mr.A.Balaji, Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Aravindaraj
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Mr.A.Balaji Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
The Sub Registrar must register documents unless explicitly prohibited by law, and cannot adjudicate ownership disputes.
Headnote:
(A) SARFAESI Act - The petitioner challenges the refusal of the first respondent to register a memorandum of deposit of title deed concerning property purchased in a SARFAESI sale - The Sub Registrar's refusal was based on an attachment and ongoing disputes regarding the property - The court found that the petitioner, having purchased the property, is entitled to register the deed as there is no restraining order against her - The Sub Registrar cannot adjudicate ownership disputes and must register documents unless a specific provision allows refusal. (Paras 1-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased property through a SARFAESI auction, which was contested by the previous owner and his family. The petitioner sought to register a mortgage deed, but the registration was refused due to ongoing disputes.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the refusal to register the mortgage deed, directing the first respondent to proceed with the registration while noting that the mortgage is subject to the outcome of pending appeals.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Sub Registrar had the authority to refuse registration based on ownership disputes and the implications of ongoing legal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Sub Registrar must register the document unless explicitly prohibited by law, emphasizing that ownership disputes should be resolved by the court, not the registrar.
Result: The impugned order is quashed, and the first respondent is directed to register the mortgage deed.
ORDER :
The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent, in No.RFL/Vaithirairuppu/2/2025, dated 11.02.2025 with a consequential direction to the first respondent to register the memorandum of deposit of title deed, dated 11.02.2025, which was presented for registration on 11.02.2025 in respect of the petitioner’s land in S.No.693/1 to an extent of 43 cents situated at W.Pudupatti Village, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property situated in S.No.693/1, W.Pudupatti Village, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District belonged to one T.Sankara Subramaniam, the third respondent herein. He had mortgaged the property with M/s.City Union Bank. Alleging default, the Bank brought the property for auction by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner had participated in the auction held on 18.06.2022 and was the successful auction purchaser. Consequent to the purchase, a sale certificate was issued in her favour and the same was also registered with the first respondent.
3. The third respondent and his father, one K.P.Thirumalai challenged the SARFAESI proceedings before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20914 of 2022. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner mutated the revenue records in her favour. She approached M/s.Vistaar Financial Services Private Limited for a loan. The financial institution called upon her to execute a mortgage deed in its favour. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a mortgage deed and took it for registration with the first respondent. The first respondent refused to register the same citing that the property was the subject matter of an attachment by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. The petitioner challenged the same by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No. 8393 of 2023. This Court allowed the Writ Petition on 29.11.2023.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the second respondent, Ms.Bavani, daughter of K.P.Thirumalai and sister of the third respondent, had instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.70 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court at Srivilliputhur and that the suit had been decreed. It is the claim of the petitioner that the second respondent has no right over the property, as she had already executed a document of gift in favour of the third respondent in Doc.No.370/2013, dated 13.03.2013. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge at Srivilliputhur, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before this Court in A.S.(MD)SRNo.96084 of 2024. Since she is a third party to the proceeding, she has sought for the leave to prefer an appeal, and the same has been numbered as C.M.P.(MD)No.18964 of 2024.
5. As the proposal with M/s.Vistaar Financial Services Private Limited fell through, the petitioner approached M/s.Indian Overseas Bank, W.Pudupatti branch, to raise a loan through a mortgage. She presented a memorandum of deposit of title deed for registration, but the first respondent had refused to register the same on the ground that the second respondent has already filed her objection for any document being presented by the Writ Petitioner.
6. Prior to considering the objection, the second respondent had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17946 of 2024 and this Court by an order, dated 31.07.2024, disposed of the said Writ Petition by recording the statement of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent that the protest petition filed by the second respondent would be considered and appropriate action will be taken, when the Writ Petitioner files a document for registration.
7. Challenging the refusal to register her memorandum of deposit of title deed, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this Writ Petition.
8. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, I took note of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.
