Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1893 (MAD)

Ramasamy v. Sub Registrar

2012-04-12

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in refusing to register the Sale Deed presented for registration, as also the order of the 2nd respondent in directing the Sub Registrar not to register the documents. 2. It is the submission of the petitioners that Ramasamy Gounder Son of Palanivel Gounder purchased the land measuring 4.72 Acres in R.S.No.468/1, Udumbiyam Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District through a registered Sale Deed dated 04.06.2001. 3. Thiru.Ramasamy Gounder and his son Thiru.Venkatesh, also executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 28.09.2010 in favour of the power agent to deal with the property. 4. The Attorney of the petitioner, executed number of Sale Deeds in favour of third parties. The Sale Deed dated 29.09.2011 executed by the petitioner in favour of Thiru.Kaliyamurthy was returned by the 1st respondent, in view of the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26.08.2011, asking him not to register the document. 5. It is strange that In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, a portion is in Tamil without translating it in the Court language. The learned counsel for the petitioners regrets this action, and prays for liberty of this Court to read the translated copy of the Tamil document, now placed on record. 6. It is the submission of the petitioners, that Thiru.Ramasamy Gounder had earlier executed number of Sale Deeds in favour of third parties, which were all registered whereas now, the impugned order has been passed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the impugned order in refusing to register the document cannot be sustained, as it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar under Sections 61 and 62 of the Registration Act or Rule 55 of the Registration Rules to go into the question of title or right of the vendor to the transfer of land that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to issue direction to prohibit 1st respondent to perform his statutory duty. The 2nd respondent cannot issue any direction to respondent No.1 as to whether any document is to be registered or not. The respondent No.1 exercised statutory functions, which are regulated by Registration Act and rules framed thereunder. The 2nd respondent cannot issue any direction to respondent No.1 as to whether any document is to be registered or not. The respondent No.1 exercised statutory functions, which are regulated by Registration Act and rules framed thereunder. The 2nd respondent, if has any objection to the registration of any deed, could file objections under Section 34 of the Registration Act, which can be decided in accordance with law. The respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the 1st respondent as to which document is to be registered and which is not to be registered. 8. The 2nd respondent, in case of violation of order of allotment, could proceed in accordance with law to cancel the allotment in accordance with law, but cannot interfere in performance of statutory duties by the Sub Registrar. 9. The impugned order being contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and based on the direction which are without jurisdiction, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to register the document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and rules framed thereunder. No costs.