IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.08.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Writ Petition Nos.34398 to 34400 & 34402 of 2007 T.G.Rajaselvam ... Petitioner in all the petitions vs. The Sub Registrar, Kundrathur, Chennai-69. ... Respondents in all the petitions Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Mandamus directing the respondent to register the sale deed in P.Nos. 169/97, 172/97, 173/97 and 170/97 respectively presented for registration relating to the plot Nos. 44, 42, 43 and 31, 42, 43 and 44 respectively situated in Moovendar Phase I Layout in Noombal Village in S.No.140/1, Ambattur Taluk dated 3.3.1997 and deliver the same to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Seshadri Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Appavu For Respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani Special Government Pleader COMMON ORDER Admit. 2. By consent, the writ petitions are disposed of. 3. Since common questions involved in all these writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common order. 4. The petitioner in all these writ petitions purchased properties from a concern known as "Surya Estate Finance" having it's office at 75, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-87 on 03.03.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner presented all the four deeds before the respondent for registration. But, the respondent has not so far registered the said documents. Aggrieved over the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same, the petitioner has come forward with these writ petitions seeking for a direction to the respondent to register the said deeds and to return the same to him. 5. The respondent, in his counter, has stated that Surya Estate Finance along with it's sister concerns collected huge deposits from number of persons and failed to repay the same. The total deposit amount due to the depositors is around Rs.1 ½ crores. In respect of the said act of cheating a case in Crime No.1097 of 1996 under Section 409 I.P.C. was registered against the partners of Surya Estate Finance namely Mr.N.Rajarathinam, T.Ramavelu and Rajathi. On completing the investigation, a charge sheet was laid and the Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 has taken cognizance in C.C.No.13 of 1998. The trial is pending. 6. In those circumstances, according to the respondent, the Inspector General of Registration directed the Registering Officer not to register any document pertaining to the properties owned by Surya Estate Finance and it's sister concerns. It is further stated that subsequently, in exercise of power under Section 3 of the said Act, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.580 Home (C&S II A) Department dated 18.05.1998 thereby making an ad-interim order attaching the properties belonging to Surya Estate Finance. The properties, which are covered in the sale deeds presented by the petitioner for registration, are governed by the said ad-interim order of attachment and therefore, the documents cannot be registered; it is contended. 7. Challenging the G.O.Ms.No.580 Home (C&S II A) Department dated 18.05.1998, the Surya Estate Finance has filed W.P.No.6563 of 1999. In the said writ petition, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner, to realise the amount due to the company and to disburse the same to the depositors. This Court by an interim order dated 23.12.2004 has released Tr.Arunagirinathan and in his place has appointed one Tr.Kailasam Natarajan a retired District Judge as Commissioner and he is now taking steps to sell the properties belonging to Surya Estate Finance. The said writ petition is still pending. In view of the pendency of W.P.No.6563 of 1999 and C.C.No.13 of 1998, according to the respondent, the documents cannot be registered. 8. It is further stated that with an intention to thwart the efforts of the Government in realising the money of the depositors, hand in glove with the Partners/Directors, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions. Therefore, according to the respondent, the documents are not liable to be registered and so the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also perused the records. 10. Admittedly, in all these four writ petitions, the sale deeds in question were executed on 03.03.1997 and they were presented for registration on the same day. As on the date of presentation of the documents, there was no criminal case nor an order of any attachment in respect of the properties of Surya Estate Finance in force. The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 came in to force only on 08.08.1997. Thus there was no reason much less a valid reason for the respondent to refuse to register the document on the date of presentation of the document. Under the Registration Act, when there is no dispute regarding the execution of the document and regarding the identity of the person who has executed the same, hardly there can be any reason for the registering officer either to delay the registration or to refuse to register the document unless there is either a statutory prohibition or there is an order of Court. In the case on hand, there was no such impediment for the respondent to delay the registration. Under the Registration Act, the registering officer can very well refuse to register a document but, he has to record reasons for the same. But in this case, admittedly no such order refusing to register the document has been passed by the respondent. 11. In the counter, as extracted above, it is stated that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.580 Home (C&S II A) Department dated 18.05.1998, under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 thereby making an ad-interim order of attachment. The said order which came to be passed only on 18.05.1998 cannot have any retrospective operation. Further under Section 4 of the said Act, the competent authority under the Act should make an application to the Special Court for making the ad-interim order absolute within a period of 30 days from the date of the interim order. But in this case, no such final order of attachment has been made by the Special Court. 12. The leaned Special Government Pleader would submit that it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy under Section 7 of the Act before the Special Court. It is true that under Section 7(2) of the Act, an aggrieved person can make an objection before the Special Court for ad-interim order of attachment being made absolute. But, unfortunately in the case on hand, since no request has been made by the competent authority to make the ad-interim order absolute, there has been no occasion https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the Special Court to serve notice and there is no occasion for the petitioner to approach the Special Court to raise objection. At this stage, it is not possible for the petitioner to approach the Special Court for any relief as there is no proceedings as of now pending before the Special Court in respect of attachment of the properties. Assuming that there is such a proceeding pending for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute, still, to raise his objection, first of all, the petitioner should have title. Unless the sale deed is registered, the petitioner cannot make use of the same before the Special Court in evidence to establish his title. If only his document is registered, he can approach the Special Court when the proceedings are initiated before the Special Court for attachment. Further the registration of this document would not preclude either the Government to issue an interim order of attachment or the competent Special Court to make the interim order absolute. Whether the transactions under which the petitioner has purchased these properties are genuine and whether properties are liable for attachment, are to be examined only by the Special Court. For any reason if the Special Court comes to the conclusion that the transactions covered in these sale deeds are not genuine and they have been created only to defeat the interest of the depositors, then the Special Court will certainly proceed to make the interim order of attachment absolute and further proceed to recover the amount by selling these properties. Such kind of remedy is always available for the aggrieved parties or for the competent authority. In all the above stated proceedings, the respondent viz the Sub Registrar has no role to play. Admittedly, he is not the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. He is after all an authority under the Registration Act, who is bound by the said Act and the Rules there under. Under the Act, he is duty bound to register the documents and to release the same to the petitioner. The instructions given by the Inspector General of Registration, is non est in the eye of law and the same does not bind the respondent as it can not override the statutory provision. In my considered opinion, the action of the respondent in keeping the document pending without registering or without passing any order is not only irregular but it is illegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent is directed to register all the documents and to return the same to the petitioner. It is clarified that such registration and return of documents to the petitioner shall not stand in the way of the competent authority to proceed against these properties in the manner known to law as indicated above. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jikr To The Sub Registrar, Kundrathur, Chennai-69. +4ccs to Mr.G.Appavu, Advocate SR 43117,43116,43118,43115 +2ccs to Govt. Pleader Sr 44029,43814 MRD (CO) km/21.8. W.P.Nos.34398 to 34400 & 34402 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/