In Mr. Sarvothman Vs D. Pushpavathy & 3 Ors., [W.A. No. 109 of 2023], the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that “the presentant of a document cannot insist the Registering Officer to register the same, since the document is presented otherwise under the provisions of the Act. When the Act and the Rules contemplate conduct of enquiry by the Registering Officer…”, the registering authority was right in passing the order of refusal when he found that there are counter claims by other persons upon conducting enquiry.
CASE SUMMARY
FACTS:
- The Appellant is a third party to the Writ Petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3. Leave granted by this Court to the writ appellant, to challenge the order passed in Writ petition.
- The Respondents 1 to 3 instituted writ proceedings challenging the refusal slip issued by the fourth respondent-Sub Registrar refusing to register the Sale Deed presented by them. The order of refusal issued under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, was under challenge before the Writ Court.
- The Respondents 1 to 3 presented the Sale Deed before the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry for registration. On perusal of the documents and records, the Sub Registrar found that the Respondents (presentant) had not submitted the Original Donation Deed and also Encumbrance Certificate for the subject property.
- Since the right to register the Sale Deed was not established by the presentant, the Sub Registrar refused to register the same. The learned Single Judge agreed with the submission of the respondents 1 to 3 that production of certified copy of title documents would be sufficient for registration and accordingly set aside the refusal slip and directed the Registering Officer to register the Sale Deed by accepting the certified copy of the title documents, if produced.
- According to the Appellant, they are the absolute owners of the subject property and several litigations are pending in respect of the subject property and some other persons are also claiming right over the property.
- Protest petitions had been submitted before the Sub Registrar citing orders of civil Court and certain other documents and therefore, the Sub Registrar had advised the presentants to approach the competent civil court. It was the case of the Appellant that in these circumstances, the 1st to 3rd Respondents failed to implead necessary parties in the writ petition.
- Hence, the Appellant was before the Division Bench challenging the order of the single judge in the writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
- They are necessary parties to the proceedings whereas they were not arrayed as parties in the writ petition despite taking a favourable finding from the Sub Registrar against the private Respondents/Writ Petitioners;
SUBMISSION OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS:
- The Sub Registrar originally refused registration of documents seeking originals documents. The Registering authority cannot insist upon production of the same;
- Mere objection from the Appellant would be insufficient to refuse registration of a document;
- Circular relied upon by the Puducherry Government relates to power of attorney and the verification to be done by the Registering officer and the same does not apply when the sale deed is presented for registration;
- The circular cannot supplant provisions of the Registration Act;
- The Appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal;
- The registering officer cannot conduct enquiry to decide the title.
Case Laws relied:
Raza Buland Sugar Co Ltd., Vs Municipal Board [AIR 1965 SC 895];
Raj Kumar Dey & Ors., Vs Tarapada Dey & Ors., [1987 (4) SCC 398];
Satya Pal Anand Vs State of Madhya Pradesh [(2016) 10 SCC 767]
(The Registering Officer is … not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document as such. The examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the 1908 Act…the function of the Registering Officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. He cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by person having title, as mentioned in the instrument.)
SUBMISSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY:
- In memorandum dated 20.02.2004 (circular), the Government has issued guidelines to prevent fraudulent registration of documents empowering registering authority to satisfy himself as to identity of the persons appearing before him;
- There is no infirmity in the order of the sub registrar refusing registration since under the Puducherry Registration Rules, he is empowered to verify the link of the documents and to verify the correctness of documents and right of the presentant of the documents for registration.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Writ Appeal allowed.
REASONS:
- Appellant had locus standi since he is a necessary party having rival claim over the property in question;
- The Government Order (circular referred above) deals with the process of registration of documents. The Registering Authorities can refuse registration of documents on the grounds provided under the Registration Act and the Rules. Paragraph 11.6 speaks of "presentation of document by an improper person (Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43)" and the relating procedures to be followed for registration.
- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Government of Puducherry published Pondicherry Registration Rules, 1969.
- As per Rule 55, the Registering Officer is bound to consider the objections raised on any one of the grounds stipulated under Rule 55(a) to (e).
- In the present case, if any document presented, is identified as forged or impersonated or right has not been established, then the Registering Officer is empowered to conduct enquiry to find out the correctness of the document presented for registration.
- the instructions/guidelines issued by the Government of Puducherry, is not only confined to the power of attorney, but also to conduct enquiry in respect of the objections, if any filed by any other persons for registering the document in terms of Sections 34, 35 and Rule 55 of the Pondicherry Registration Rules.
- the presentant of a document, cannot insist the Registering Officer to register the same, since the document is presented otherwise under the provisions of the Act. When the Act and the Rules contemplate conduct of enquiry by the Registering Officer and in the present case, the Registering Officer conducted an enquiry and found that there are counter claims by other persons, hence he is justified in passing the order of refusal.
COUNSELS:
For Appellant: Ms. P. Bhuvaneswari for Mr. P. Chandrasekaran;
For private Respondents [R1 - R3]: Mr. P.V.S Giridhar, Senior Counsel for M/s P.V.S Giridhar Associates;
For Government of PY [R4]: Mr. V. Vasanthakumar, Additional Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment: 26.03.2024
(This is a judgment summary and not an opinion piece.)
Comments