Prevent registration of bogus documents to safeguard the interest of public and their properties: Madras High Court

W.A.No.19819IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.04.2021CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGANW.A.No.19819andC.M.P.No.2262191.Ammasi Kutti S o.Angappa Gounder.2.Smt.Kannammal W o.Ammasi Kutti.Both are residing at No.1 34 Malayappalayam Olakoil Village Gobichettipalayam Taluk Erode District.... AppellantsVs1.S.Manoharan S o.Suriyanarayanan No.1 9 Malayappalayam Olakoil Village Gobichettipalayam Taluk Erode District.2.The District Registrar Tiruppur Registration District Tiruppur.3.The Sub Registrar Kunnathur Avinashi Taluk Triuppur District.1 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.198194.Murugayammal W o.Rasappa Gounder No.2 11 Pattampalayam Avinashi Taluk Tiruppur District.5.Komarayal W o.Velusamy Olakoil Village Gobichettipalayam Taluk Erode District. 6.Marathal W o.Palanisamy No.2 59 Komarapalayam Chockkanur Village Avinashi Taluk Tiruppur District.7.Lakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi W o.Late.Ramasamy No.266 Rattaiyankurrai Andipalayam Village Gobichettipalayam Erode District.8.P.R.Subramanian S o.Late.Rasappa Gounder Sakkilan Thottam Pattampalayam Village Tiruppur District. 9.P.S.Kandasamy S o.P.R.Subramanian Sakkilan Thottam Pattampalayam Village Tiruppur District.10.Smt.Gowri W o.Gurusamy Kattupalayam Sokkanur Village 2 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819Tiruppur District.11.Baby @ Palaniammal W o.Eswaramoorthy Valasupalayam Karunampathi Post 641666Perumanallur Via Avinashi Taluk Coimbatore District.... RespondentsPRAYER : Appeal against the order passed in W.P.No.2230 2016 dated 29.03.2019.For Appellant : Mr.S.ParathasarathyFor Respondents : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kaithamalai KumaranMr.T.M.PappiahSpecial Government Pleader Mr.P.ParthikannanIn respect of deeds involving transfer of immovable property such as sale gift settlement exchange or 8 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819creating charge over the property such as Mortgage or Power of Attorney the registering officer should insist presentation of previous original deed deeds by which the executants acquired right over the said property before registering the document and then verify the previous documents to satisfy himself that the executants have right over the property.(B) In case previous document are not available as the property may be ancestral the executants should produce revenue records such as Patta copy issued by the Revenue Department and tax receipt in original along with attested notarized Xerox copies to prove that the properties are owned by them. The Registering Officer should verify the original and return them to the party concerned and preserve the attested Xerox copy as part of the document by scanning and numbering it.(C) In case the previous original document is lost the party should produce certified copy of the document copy of complaints recorded in Police Station and copy of advertisement published in local dailies regarding loss of documents. In such case the party has to produce Patta property tax receipt in original.(i)In case if the property is Government land poramboke 9 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819land or belonging to religious institution as per revenue records other records and the party has not produce any patta to prove his right the Registering officer should return the document with check slip stating the facts.(ii)In the above mentioned case if the party produces patta then the Registering Officer should keep the document pending for ascertaining the facts and genuineness of patta from concerned department revenue officials.(iii) In case of cancellation of settlement deed if the settlor is unable to produce the original settlement deed as it may be with settlee then the settlor should produce certified copy of the settlement deed. The Registering Officer after verifying the certified copy for identity then register the cancellation deed without insisting for original deed."9.One of the instructions given by the Inspector General of Registration is directing the registration authorities to insist on presentation of the previous original deeds sale deeds by which the executant acquired right over the property before registering the document. If anybody intends to purchase the property definitely he she they should verify whether the person has got a right over the property and has got title by having registered documents in his her their 10 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819favour. If the purchaser is not interested for various other reasons to verify the original documents that is the vendors the registering authorities has got every right to insist upon the executant to produce the previous original deeds through which he acquired the property. The intention is only to prevent the bogus sale deeds being registered and to safe guard the public interest viz. the rights of the property owners. The bonafide intention in issuing the circular dated 25.04.2012 should be appreciated as it has been done only in the public interest.10.Following the said circular only 2nd and 3rd respondents registering authorities refused to register the document presented by the 1st respondent having been executed by respondents 4 to 7. The authorities took note of the fact that the property was already sold by the son of Mr.Rasappa Gounder 8th respondent to the appellants as early as on 2002. There is no document produced before this Court to show that neither the 1st respondent nor the respondents 4 to 7 have been enjoying the property right from the date of death of Mr.Rasappa Gounder as early as on 14.09.2001. From the year 2002 onwards the appellants are in possession of the property and have been enjoying for more than 12 11 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819years. By that time they would have perpetrated the title by way of adverse possession.11.Having slept over the matter like a Rip van winckle the respondents 4 to 7 suddenly woke up from their deep slumber and tried to execute the sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent alleging certain right over the property and claiming that the entire property was fraudulently sold by the 8th respondent to the appellants. The only proper remedy in this case of defrauding or selling away the property or the share of the respondents 4 to 7 stealthily the appropriate remedy is only to go for cancellation of sale deed executed by the 8th respondent in favour of the appellants or to go for partition. The said remedy is only available to respondents 4 to 7 and not to the 1st respondent who is the stranger to the property even though he is said to have invested his money. If he has invested the money in the property it is his own invitation as he has not acted as a prudent purchaser. He has not verified the original title deed or Encumbrance Certificate of the properties which is sought to be purchased by him. That itself would go to show that he is not a bonafide purchaser and he is only interested in purchasing the 12 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819litigation for which he has to be blamed.12.The Division Bench of this Court rightly held that Article 226 cannot be invoked when the civil rights of the parties over the property have to be decided and the proper course is only go before the civil court. This Court respectfully admits the said reasoning given by the Division Bench of this Court.13.The memo issued by the 2nd respondent refusing the registration of the document produced by the appellant 1st respondent on the ground that the property was already sold may not be in correct position. What should have been done by the 2nd respondent is to refuse the registration on the ground that the original title deeds were not produced. In any event the rejection is rightly done but on a wrong reasoning and therefore this Court approves the rejection and deems it as if it has been rejected for non production of original title deed by the executants at the time of registration of the property.14.No doubt Rule 55 contemplates only a few existencies. 13 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819Rule 55 is extracted as follows.“55.It forms no part of a registering officer s duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend to any 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 but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:order passed from 21.10.2017 to 16.09.2019Based on IGR Order No. C.No.41530 U1 2017 Dated 08 11 2011S.No.ZonePetitions ReceviedEnquiry Conducted & Orders passedPending CasesPetitions Rejected1Salem70524645902Cuddalore279 2215263Coimbatore2682095814Madurai10427311651565Vellore32224435436Thanjavur23810413497Chennai21074361629428Tirunelveli6222283941749Trichy59919833369TOTAL61822617325950016.After coming to know about the number of fraudulent deeds being registered artificially creating encumbrance over the properties of third parties by land sharks or land grabbers the circular dated 25.04.2012 was rightly issued and therefore the circular dated 25.04.2012 is being upheld by this Court as it is only prevent the 16 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819registration of bogus documents and also to safeguard the interest of the public and their properties.17.No doubt the circular dated 25.04.2012 is in the nature of executive instruction which needs to be incorporated in Rules. It is expected that the Government would incorporate the circular dated 25.04.2012 in the Registration Rules by way of an amendment so that the circular would get a statutory backing and on a later date it would not be found fault with.18.Therefore the State Government is to frame appropriate Rules incorporating the circular dated 25.04.2012 within a period of sixmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a compliance report before this Court. 19.The only remedy open to the 1st respondent either to request the vendors viz. R4 to R7 to approach the civil Court either for cancellation of sale deed dated 04.07.2002 or for partition of the property making all the necessary parties as defendants in the Suit or by filing a 17 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819civil suit for recovery of money which he is said to have paid to R4 to R7. While defending the case the appellants have got every right to defend by pleading adverse possession and also limitation. Therefore the order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and the memo refusing to register the sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent dated 09.11.2015 is upheld for the reason that the executants of the sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent has not produced the parent title deed as confirmed by the 2nd respondent by order dated 01.12.2015.20.Accordingly the Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.For reporting compliance call the matter after six months.(N.K.K. J) (P.V. J)30.04.2021 sai18 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819To1.The District Registrar Tiruppur Registration District Tiruppur.2.The Sub Registrar Kunnathur Avinashi Taluk Triuppur District.19 20 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A.No.19819N.KIRUBAKARAN J.andP.VELMURUGAN J. saiW.A.No.19819Dated : 30.04.202120 20 

Summary: In order to reduce the number of fraudulent deeds being registered where land sharks or land grabbers artificially create encumbrance over properties of third parties, a government circular must rightly be issued that validates the sale of property. A division bench of N Kirubakaran J and P Velmurugan J, while adjudicating the matter in Ammasi Kutti v. S Manoharan [W.A.No.1989 of 2019]; dealt with the issue of land grabbing. Appellants got their sale registered in their favour from one Mr.P.R.Subramaniyan, S/o.Rasappa Gounder. The property originally belonged to Mr.Rasappa Gounder and he died intestate. The widow and the daughter executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. When the sale deed was presented for registration before the official respondents, they refused to register the sale deed by issuing a memo and the said order was challenged before the district registrar who by way of an order rejected the appeal on the ground that Mr.P.R.Subramaniyan, already sold the entire extent of property to the appellants and therefore, the document cannot be registered. The said order was challenged before the learned single Judge. On contest, the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the Registering Authorities has got no power and passed a cryptic order. The said order is being challenged before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had purchased the property as early as on 04.07.2002 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Having known all these facts, the widow and the sisters kept quiet for more than 13 years and subsequently, attempted to sell away the property to the 1st respondent/original writ petitioner and that was rightly prevented by the 2nd and 3rd respondent by refusing to register the said document. The learned counsel representing the respondent stated that the registration authorities has got no power to make enquiry with regard to the title of the property and they cannot refuse the registration on the ground that the property was already conveyed or sold. He would rely upon the Rule 55 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules to contend that the scope of enquiry to be conducted by the registering authority is only confined to five grounds which have been enumerated therein and beyond that the registration authority has got no power to refuse the registration on the ground that the property was already sold or there is no title to the executants. Further, this Court in aware of very many fraudulent deeds, especially sale deeds being registered and knocking away the property of innocent owners behind their back, in view of the sky rocketing of real estate prices.