← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/18791/2023disposed of

Stanly Joseph Michealraj v. The Inspector General Of Registration

2023-08-03Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi10 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP.(MD).No.18791 of 2023 and WMP(MD) No.15610 of 2023 Stanly Joseph Michealraj ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhom High Road, Chennai 600 008.

2.The District Registrar (Administration), (Deputy Inspector General of Registration), Trichy.

3.The Sub Registrar, K.Sathanur Sub Registrars Office, Trichy District.

4.S.M.Ravindra Reddy Alias S.M..Ravindran, ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the 1/10

records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.15332/A4/2022 dated 06.07.2023 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate

O R D E R

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with one Arun Nandhini and Sekar have jointly purchased a property comprised in S.No.139/17 to an extent of 16 cents in Nagamangalam Village, Manikandan Panchayat, vide registered Document No. 4313/2011 and the same was registered in Sub Registrar Office, K.Saathanur. Thereafter, the co-sharer of the property namely S.Sekar has executed a sale deed in respect of his share in favour of the petitioner and Arun Nandini vide Document No.3316/2014. While this being so, the District Registrar, Trichy has passed an order in Na.Ka.No.15332/Aa.4/2022, dated 06.07.2023, in and by which, the District Registrar has cancelled the settlement Deed in Document No. 2/10

2345/2006 executed by one Mariyayi in favour of her grand children and also cancelled the subsequent documents arising out of the above settlement deed. According to the petitioner, the District Registrar has passed the order without considering the fact that the documents executed in favour of the petitioner along with others was of the year 2011.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the fact that the authority conferred on the District Registrars to cancel the documents cannot be applied retrospectively for those documents executed prior to amendment and insertion of Section 77 A of the Registration Act, 1908.

3.Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents submits that as against the order passed 3/10

by the District Registrar,Trichy, the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Inspector General of Registration, under Section 67 B(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.

4.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., [(2016) 10 SCC 767] has held that that the power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter and in the absence of any express provision on that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Registering Officer would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Therefore, for cancellation of registered documents, the State of Tamil Nadu brought an amendment to the Registration Act, vide the Registration (Tamil Nadu Second Amendment) Act, 2021. By this amendment Act, Sections 22B, 77A, 77B, 81A and 81B were inserted in the Registration Act. Section 77A provides the power to the Registrar to cancel registered documents, if it is found to be in contravention of sections 22A and 22B.

4/10

5.Whereas, this Court in S.M. Hajabakrutheen Vs. The Inspector General of Registration [W.P.(MD) Nos. 14546 of 2022 batch, dated 27.03.2023], in view of the conflicting views taken by two different benches of this Court regarding the applicability of Section 77A, has referred various issues for consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the reference order is extracted as follows- "20. In view of the reasonings of the Full Bench and in view of the conflicting views of the two learned Single Judges the following issues are referred for due consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court.

i) whether the recitals in a document presented for registration, can be examined to determine that such document was fraudulently executed or registered; ii) whether a document in which the recitals alone are questioned can be considered only as voidable which would normally necessitate the filing of the suit to set aside the particular document or whether even those 5/10

documents can be cancelled by the Sub Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act;

iii) whether exercise of power under Section 77A must be restricted to registration of documents in contravention to Section 22-A or 22-B of Registration Act, 1908 alone?

iv) whether the exercise of such power under Section 77A of the Registration Act can be prospective in nature or retrospective in nature?

21. To determine these issues, the Registry may place all the writ petitions before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge for constitution of a Larger Bench to examine the issues in detail.

22. Till a decision is rendered by the Larger Bench, let no further action be taken by any of the Sub Registrars, who may await further orders of the Larger Bench." 6.By referring to the above order, this Court in A.Shanthi v. The District Registrar [WP.No.18814 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023] 6/10

has reiterated that the District Registrars across Tamil Nadu shall not take any action on an application under Section 77A of the Registration Act, till the reference is answered by the Larger Bench. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:- "4.In the light of the above order, there is no scope for considering the representation made by the petitioner at present and the petitioner has to necessarily await for the final orders to be passed by the Larger Bench on the issue. Hence, this writ petition is closed for the present. 5.It is brought to the notice of this Court that in spite of the above order passed by this Court, the District Registrars are entertaining the applications under Section 77A of the Registration Act and even orders are passed.

It is not known as to whether this order was circulated to all the District Registrars in State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the above order, this Court once again reiterates that the District Registrars across Tamil Nadu shall not take any further action on the application submitted under Section 77A of the Registration Act, till a final decision is rendered by the Larger Bench.

Inspector General of Registration is directed to issue a Circular in this regard to all the District Registrars across the State of Tamil Nadu immediately"

7.In view of the above decisions, this Court disposes of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court and if any civil suit is filed, the same shall be entertained by the civil Court by excluding the period for which this writ petition was pending before this Court for the purpose of calculating the limitation period. The writ petitioner is also at liberty to invoke Section 77A of the Act upon the outcome of the reference made. There shall be no order as to costs.

03.08.2023 NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes vrn 8/10

To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhom High Road, Chennai 600 008.

2.The District Registrar (Administration), (Deputy Inspector General of Registration), Trichy.

3.The Sub Registrar, K.Sathanur Sub Registrars Office, Trichy District.

9/10

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

vrn Order made in WP.(MD).No.18791 of 2023 and WMP(MD) No.15610 of 2023 03.08.2023 10/10