Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice R.SAKTHIVEL
Thenmozhi – Appellant
Versus
S. Annadurai – Respondent
C.R.P.(PD)No.4333 of 2022 | C.M.P.No.22784 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.A. Sudesh Kumar
For the Respondents: R. Anitha (Special Government Pleader), D. Gopinath
In a statutory suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, only the parties to the document and registering officers are necessary parties; validity is not decided, and the suit cannot be converted into a title suit.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 77 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Statutory suit for compulsory registration - Necessary parties - In a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, only the parties to the document and the concerned Sub-Registrar and District Registrar are necessary parties - The validity of the document is not to be decided in such a suit; it can only be determined in a properly framed title suit - A statutory suit cannot be converted into a title suit - Remedy under Section 77 does not take away the larger remedy under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Para 10)
(B) Impleadment - Parties who have obtained decrees against one of the defendants in separate suits are not necessary parties in a statutory suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act - Their private dispute can be adjudicated in separate proceedings - Trial court correctly dismissed the implead application. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a statutory suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908, seeking compulsory registration of two sale deeds executed by the first respondent in favour of their father. During the pendency of the suit, they filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead respondents 4 and 5 as defendants, alleging that the first respondent had colluded with them and obtained ex parte decrees in two other suits (O.S.Nos.32 & 33 of 2017) setting aside a sale deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the first respondent. The trial court dismissed the implead application, holding that the proposed parties were not necessary for deciding the suit.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that in a statutory suit under Section 77, only the parties to the document and the registering officers are necessary parties. The genuineness of the document can be considered, but not its validity. The suit cannot be converted into a title suit. Even if the proposed parties have some interest, their private dispute can be adjudicated separately. The trial court's order dismissing the implead application was correct and suffered from no irregularity or illegality.
Issues: Whether the proposed parties (respondents 4 and 5) are necessary parties in a statutory suit filed under Section 77 of the Registration Act for compulsory registration?
Ratio Decidendi: In a statutory suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, the only necessary parties are the parties to the document and the concerned Sub-Registrar and District Registrar. The validity of the document is not within the scope of such a suit; it can only be determined in a properly framed title suit. Therefore, persons who have obtained decrees against one of the defendants in separate suits are not necessary parties. Result : Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected CMP closed.
ORDER
The Revision Petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs and the Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.282 of 2017 on the file of 'the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court').
2.The Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed a Statutory Suit against Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 to 3 under Section 77 of 'the Registration Act, 1908' [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] directing the Second and Third Respondents to register the documents dated September 06, 2016, numbered as P-115/2016 and P-116/2016 and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant, their men and agents from alienating the Suit Property.
3.During the pendency of the Suit, the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 (2) & (4) of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC'], praying to implead the Respondents 4 and 5 herein as the Defendants 4 and 5 in the Suit by stating that the First Respondent herein and the Respondents 4 and 5/proposed parties colluded and filed two Suits in O.S.No.32 of 2017 and O.S.No.33 of 2017 before the District Judge, Chengalpattu and obtained an exparte decree wherein and whereby the Sale Deed executed by the Fourth Respondent - Ranjitha in favour of the First Respondent - Annadurai on January 30, 2015 has been set aside. Hence, the Respondents 4 and 5 herein are necessary parties to the Suit.
4.The Trial Court after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs did not seek any relief against the Respondents 4 & 5 and they are not necessary parties to decide the Suit, accordingly, dismissed the petition.
5.Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order passed in I.A.No.1165 of 2019 in O.S.No.282 of 2017, the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision Petition.
6.Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the First Respondent and the Respondents 4 & 5/proposed parties colluded and filed two Suits in O.S.No.32 of 2017 and O.S.No.33 of 2017 and the Sale Deed executed by the Fourth Respondent in favour of the First Respondent was set aside. The Revision Petitioners' father-Jagadeesan and the First Respondent-Annadurai were friends. The Revision Petitioners' father entered into an Oral Agreement of Sale with the First Respondent and the First Respondent also executed two Sale Deeds in favour of the Revision Petitioners' father. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioners' father presented the Sale Deeds for compulsory registration and the Sub Registrar refused to do so. Hence, the Revision Petitioners's father filed an appeal before the District Registrar, the District Registrar also refused to register the documents. Meanwhile the Revision Petitioners' father passed away on May 1, 2017 pending the appeal. Hence, the Revision Petitioners qua his legal heirs filed the present Statutory Suit under Section 77 of the Act, seeking direction to register the Sale Deeds. In these circumstances, the First Respondent and the Respondents 4 & 5 / proposed parties with a view to defeat and defraud the rights of the Revision Petitioners, colluded and filed those Suits before the District Court, Chengalpattu to nullify the Sale Deed dated January 30, 2015 executed by the Fourth Respondent-Ranjitha in favour of the First Respondent-Annadurai. Hence, in this Suit, the Respondents 4 & 5, who are alleged Decree Holders against the First Respondent, are necessary parties. The Trial Court without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, refused to allow the petition. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition, and the same shall be allowed.
7.Per contra, Mr.D.Gopinath, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 4 & 5 submitted that the Respondents 4 & 5 are not necessary parties to the Suit. The Respondents 4 & 5 also got a decree in favour of them against the First Respondent in O.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2017. Only with a v
