IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.10.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P.No 27422 of 2006 M. Mohanraj ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Velacherry, Chennai.42. 2. Lakshmi Bai 3. G. Hari (Impleaded as per order dt. 19.10.2009 in MP No.2/2009) ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent pertaining to Na.Ka.No.18/2006, by an order dated 27.6.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to make necessary entries in his office records by deleting the transactions vide the sale Deeds documents Nos. 4567 of 1988 and 4568 of 1988 both dated 8.12.1988 within the time limit. For Petitioner : Mr. P.N. Prakash for M/s. Span Associates For Respondents : Mr. V. Manohar Govt. Advocate – R1 No Appearance – R2 & R3 O R D E R This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 27.6.2006 passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.18/2006 and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to direct the first respondent to make necessary entries in his office records by deleting the transactions vide the sale deed namely Document Nos. 4567/1988 and 4568/1988, dated 8.12.1988. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of property under sale deed dated 23.11.88 in document Nos. 4289/1988 registered with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Alandur, Chennai and is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. According to the petitioner, one Lakshbai, w/o Ethiraj and G. Hari, S/o M. Gopalakrishnan sold the property based on fictitious documents and registered the same under Document Nos. 4567/1988 and 4568/1988, both dated 8.12.1988 before the Sub Registrar, Alandur. Such sale was challenged by the petitioner before the Civil Court in O.S.No. 117 of 2001 and O.S.No. 118 of 2001. The two sale deeds were declared null and void vide judgment and decree dated 30.6.2004. 4. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order on 12.7.2004 after a delay of 12 days and the order was made ready on 2.9.2004 but received by the petitioner on 7.9.2004. There was further delay of 5 days. Thereafter, on the basis of this Court's order, a representation was made to the respondent/ Sub Registrar to make appropriate corrections in the records and to delete the transactions made in document Nos. 4567 and 4588 of 1998, both dated 8.12.1988 as per the order of the Civil Court. Such application was rejected on 27.6.2006. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order. Besides, it is also stated that records are available only at the Sub Registrar Office, Alandur and the first respondent cannot make any correction or cancellation. The first reason for rejecting the request for cancellation in terms of the order of the Civil Court is based on Section 89 of the Registration Act, which reads as follows:- " Section 89 (2) Every Court granting a certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall send a copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1. " 6. Section 89 of the Registration Act relates to grant of loan under the Land Improvement Loan Act 1883. For the purpose of recording the loan transaction, clause 2 of Section 89 mandates that forwarding of the certificate consequent to the judgment and decree https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Court. It does not speak about cancellation of sale deeds pursuant to order of Court. Therefore, Section 89 of the Act referred to by the authority does not stand to reason. The order refusing to cancel the sale deed in terms of the Civil Court decree is therefore misconceived and bad. 7. The second reason for rejection is delay. Insofar as the delay is concerned, as per Section 23 of the Act, the time granted for submitting the document is four months from the date on which, the decree or order was made by the Court. Section 23 and proviso of the Act reads as follows:- " Section 23. Time for presenting documents:- Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution: Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final. " 8. In this case, the judgment and decree was passed on 30.6.2004 and the application was made on 12.7.2004 after the delay of 12 days and the copy of the decree was made ready on 2.9.2004 and received on 7.9.2004. The petitioner made his representation within the four months period prescribed i.e. on 25.11.2004. This fact is not disputed. Therefore, in terms of proviso to Section 23 of the Act, the application for cancellation of the documents as per the Civil Courts decision is well within the time. The reason given by the respondent/ authority is contrary to the above said provision of law. The authority has further stated that on 23.3.2006 in the statement given by the petitioner, he has accepted that there is a delay. In the statement given to the authority on 23.3.2006, the delay referred to is with regard to correction in the order of the High Court and that delay is not relatable to submission of the documents. The first communication is on 25.11.2004 and it is within time. Therefore, the said reason also cannot be put against the petitioner to reject his application. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as above, the order of the respondent impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority i.e. Sub Registrar, Alandur or Sub Registrar, Velachery, who ever is the appropriate authority to comply with the order of the Civil Court, to correct the record as ordered. Such exercise shall be completed within a reasonable time preferably on or before 30.11.2009. The authority shall give the petitioner an opportunity to appear in person and to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present the original decree for the purpose of cancellation of registration in terms of the Civil Court Order. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Velachery, Chennai.42. 2. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Alandur, Chennai.42. + 1 cc to The Govt. Pleader, SR 54931 + 1 cc to M/S. SPAN Associates, Advocate SR 54831 WP No. 27422/2006 TS (CO) RH (5.11.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/