Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3291 (MAD)

Southern Regional Manager v. B. Shahjahan

2019-11-28

R.THARANI, T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal has been filed by the Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam, rep. by its Southern Regional Manager, Tirunelveli (hereinafter referred to as appellant) challenging the order dated 08.02.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.3140 of 2018, in a Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the proceedings of the Sub Registrar, Pettai, Tirunelveli, dated 03.07.2015, and the order passed by the District Registrar (Administration), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, the appellate authority, confirming the order passed by the Sub Registrar, Pettai, Tirunelveli. The first respondent has also sought for a consequential direction to register and release the sale deed, which was kept pending as document No.29/2015 executed by the first respondent in respect of the property in S.No.15/1B, Vagaikulam Village, Tirunelveli Taluk and District. 2. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding that the Sub Registrar as well as the District Registrar had adjudicated on the title of the first respondent over the subject property and come to the conclusion that he had no right over the property and hence cannot present any document for registration. Referring to Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, the learned Writ Court held that the registering authorities cannot decide the title of any person to an immovable property and cannot enquire into the validity of the documents brought before them for registration. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed with a direction to register and release the document. 3. The appellant challenges the order passed in the Writ Petition firstly on the ground that the first respondent did not avail the statutory remedy available under Section 77 of the Registration Act. Secondly, there is a prohibition to register the property belonging to Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments and Mutts in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Thirdly the land in question belongs to the appellant Mutt and as on date the revenue records stand in the name of the Mutt. Apart from the above grounds the appellant would contend that the Mutt had executed Karar Nama dated 20.09.1939 in favour of one Essakiammal and using the tenancy right, the said Essakiammal sold the property and first respondent claims right through one of the person who had purchased the property from the purchasers of Essakiammal. Apart from the above grounds the appellant would contend that the Mutt had executed Karar Nama dated 20.09.1939 in favour of one Essakiammal and using the tenancy right, the said Essakiammal sold the property and first respondent claims right through one of the person who had purchased the property from the purchasers of Essakiammal. It is further contended that the Registration Authority did not go into the title of the property but verified the revenue record and found that the property stands in the name of the appellant Mutt and therefore, rightly refused registration. Further, it is contended that no patta was granted to Essakkiammal or persons claiming under her under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the revenue records are in the name of the appellant Mutt. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had elaborately referred to the documents, which were placed in the form of typed set of documents and the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition and prayed for setting aside the order passed in the Writ Petition. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shanmugam and 113 others v. Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam Manam and another [1997-1-L.W. 287] and Sudha Ravi Kumar v. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner, HR & CE Department (DB) [ 2017 (3) CTC 135 ]. 5. Countering the above submissions Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, submitted that the said Essakkiammal had not only been granted Melwaram rights over the land in question but also Kudiwaram rights and patta has been granted in favour of the first respondent's vendors and the contention of the appellant that the revenue records stand in the name of the Mutt is not tenable. The vendors of the first respondent after purchasing the property had applied for a separate patta and while doing so had produced no 'objection certificate' issued by the appellant Mutt and thereafter patta was granted in favour of the first respondent's vendor in S.No.15/B and the property is owned by the first respondent and patta stands in the name of the Mutt is in respect of S.No.15/A. Further, the learned Senior Counsel sought to sustain the finding of the learned Single Judge and contended that Rule 55 of the Registration Rules is a clear bar for the registering officer to enquire into the validity of the documents brought before him for registration or to attend written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document. Further, it is submitted that clause (a) to (e) in Rule 55 spells out the nature of objections which can be considered by the registering authority and the objection now raised by the appellant Mutt does not fall under any one of those clauses and therefore, the learned Single Bench is right in allowing the Writ Petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 7. The first respondent/writ petitioner suffered an order at the hands of the Sub Registrar, who refused to register the document and passed a speaking order on 03.07.2015. In the said order dated 03.07.2015, the registering authority has stated that he received objection letter 07.04.1995 objecting to entertain the sale deed stating that the Mutt is the owner of the property. Pursuant to such objection, the registering authority issued notice to the first respondent and the appellant to produce proof to sustain their respective claim. On production of the documents, the registering authority found that the updated revenue record stands in the name of the appellant Mutt. Further, the registering authority observed that there was no document, by which, the first respondent was able to establish that he got the property from the Mutt or his vendor or vendor's vendor obtained the property from the Mutt. In the light of the above, the registering authority took note of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration in Letter No.18339/C1/2012 dated 25.04.2012 and refused registration. In the light of the above, the registering authority took note of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration in Letter No.18339/C1/2012 dated 25.04.2012 and refused registration. In the said order it was indicated that there is an appeal remedy available. 8. The first respondent filed an appeal before the District Registrar, the third respondent herein. We find from the order passed by the District Registrar dated 08.12.2016, that elaborate arguments were advanced by the first respondent by engaging the services of a learned counsel and written arguments were also submitted. One of the contention raised before the appellate authority is that Smt. Essakkiammal was granted Kudiwaram Right pursuant to a Karar Nama. The contention advanced before us is that the said Smt. Essakkiamml had both Kudiwaram and Melwaram right and the same argument advanced before the third respondent. That apart in the appeal grounds it has been stated that an application for sub-division of patta has been made in R.T.R.No.738/91-92 dated 07.07.1992 before the third respondent. Documents were marked by the first respondent. The third respondent after considering the arguments and materials placed before him dismissed the appeal by order dated 08.12.2016. 9. We need to examine as to whether the third respondent has usurped the powers of the Civil Court and ventured to decide the disputed questions of title and did he transgress the powers under Rule 55 of the Registration Rules. 10. As mentioned by us earlier, it is because of the first respondent's elaborate appeal memorandum and various documents and records produced, the third respondent was compelled to pen down a detailed order. We find from the orders that the third respondent has set out the contention of the first respondent and the objections raised by the appellant mutt. The third respondent has not ventured to examine disputed questions of fact or render any finding on the title to the property. 11. The following is the operative portion of the order, which give reasons as to why the document presented by the first respondent cannot be accepted for registration and why the Sub-Registrar was right in refusing registration. Xx xxxx xxx A cursory perusal of the above findings will clearly show that the appellate authority has gone by the revenue records. He has not weighed the documents and ruled in favour of the Mutt. Xx xxxx xxx A cursory perusal of the above findings will clearly show that the appellate authority has gone by the revenue records. He has not weighed the documents and ruled in favour of the Mutt. There was no adjudication of the title of the first respondent and the order refusing registration was solely based upon the entries in the Revenue Records. Therefore, the contention of the first respondent that the registering authority and the first appellate authority have usurped the powers of the Civil Court and ruled on the title to the property is incorrect. Consequently, the findings rendered by the learned Writ Court need to be interfered. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent had reiterated that separate patta has been granted. We had pointed out that the first respondent herself in the appeal grounds has made a reference to a request under Act 26 of 1963 for sub division patta. Admittedly, a person having not obtained any subdivision in terms of Act 26 of 1963 cannot rest his claim on a revenue patta issued by the Revenue Tahsildar. The said patta has absolutely no validity and to say to least it is an unenforceable document could be based upon bogus and false entry made in the register. Therefore, any such patta issued in favour of the first respondent's vendor or vendor's vendor can in no manner improve the case of the first respondent. 13.The decision in the case of Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam (supra) arose out of an appeal filed under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 by various occupants of different extents of land, who claimed ryotwari patta on the ground that they are ryots in possession and occupation of ryoti land under the provisions of the Act challenging the orders of the authorities below, rejecting their claim and directing the issue of patta in favour of the appellant Mutt. The judgement of the Division Bench will apply to the case on hand as it concerns the Estate owned by the appellant Mutt and as to validity of the claim made by the occupants stating that they are entitled for grant of ryotwari patta. The judgement of the Division Bench will apply to the case on hand as it concerns the Estate owned by the appellant Mutt and as to validity of the claim made by the occupants stating that they are entitled for grant of ryotwari patta. One of the contention advanced by the appellant Mutt before the Division Bench was that the claimants cannot claim or get ryotwari patta in their favour unless it was established by them that the character of the lands are really ryoti and such lands were included in the holding of a ryot within the meaning of Act 26 of 1963 and therefore not entitled to any relief. Further, it was submitted that the concept of ryoti interest is unknown in the case of a new Inam Estate till the coming into force of the Act 26 of 1963 unlike in the case of an existing Inam Estate in respect of which rights of ryot or ryoti interest were conferred upon occupants since 1936. 14. The contention of the claimants for ryotwari patta was rejected by the Division Bench holding that merely because the lands in question were cultivable lands and being actually cultivated by some of the lessees alone, it cannot be asserted that they are ryoti lands in the holding of a ryot who has been inducted by the landholder and granted such right by carving out Kudiwaram interest and conferring upon such tenants any such occupancy rights. 15. Further, it was pointed out that the inams governed by Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963 also at times involved or related to religious institutions and the legislature thought fit as a matter of policy to provide for the protection of the interests of religious institutions also, as much as they cared or shown their concern for the interest of tenants, if not more. Consequently, the legislature enacted Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1966 whereunder it has chosen to exempt a landholder which is a religious institution from the necessity or need to prove personal cultivation for the stipulated period to get patta in favour of such religious institution. Consequently, the legislature enacted Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1966 whereunder it has chosen to exempt a landholder which is a religious institution from the necessity or need to prove personal cultivation for the stipulated period to get patta in favour of such religious institution. The contention raised by the appellant Mutt that it is not that every one who is found to be in possession, cultivating the lands and paying waram or rent to the landholder, can be said to have acquired Kudiwaram interest or become entitled to occupancy rights, with particular reference to the peculiar and special connotations those concepts bear in the type of legislations viz., land tenure laws was accepted by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the sale deed was executed after obtaining 'no objection' from the Mutt. In our considered view any such person issuing such 'no objection certificate' on behalf of any religious institution or Mutt, if at all a Manager or authorised signatory had done so, it was an act beyond his jurisdiction and illegal and unenforceable especially after the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959 has come into force. Consequently, can confer no benefit on any one's favour. Therefore, placing reliance on the so called 'no objection certificate' is of little avail and such contention has to be outrightly rejected. 17. The facts placed before the learned Writ Court by way of counter affidavit appears to have not been clearly set out before the learned Writ Court, from which, we see that there were several litigation initiated by the parties among themselves and in none of those litigations the appellant/Mutt was impleaded as a defendant. Obviously, such a decree obtained by a third party would not bind the appellant Mutt. Thus, in the absence of any ryotwari patta having been issued in favour of Essakkiammal the claim of the first respondent based on a revenue patta said to have been granted by the Tahsildar can in no manner help the first respondent. As pointed out earlier, neither the Sub Registrar nor the District Registrar have rendered any finding on the title to the property and they gone by the revenue records, which clearly states that the property stands in the name of the appellant Mutt. 18. As pointed out earlier, neither the Sub Registrar nor the District Registrar have rendered any finding on the title to the property and they gone by the revenue records, which clearly states that the property stands in the name of the appellant Mutt. 18. In the light of the above, we are of the clear view that the first respondent was not entitled to present the document for registration not get it registered. One of the contentions raised by the appellant is that though there is an alternative remedy available under Section 77 of the Registration Act, the first respondent did not avail the same. In our considered view, the first respondent need not be granted any liberty to file an appeal because the Writ Petition was pending from the year 2017 and the counter affidavit was filed and the Writ Petition was allowed in February, 2018 and before us both the parties have agitated their respective case fully which we have carefully considered and hence no useful purpose will be served in granting liberty to the first respondent to approach the appellate authority under Section 77 of the Act at this juncture. This is more so because we are fully convinced that the order passed by the Sub-Registrar refusing to register the document is within the four corners of the provisions of the Registration Act, in particular, Rule 55 of the Registration Rules. 19. For the above reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Writ Court is set aside and consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed, confirming the orders passed by the 4th respondent dated 03.07.2015 as confirmed by the third respondent by order dated 08.12.2016. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.