District Registrar Has No Power To Adjudicate Civil Rights Of Parties & Cancel Sale Deeds: Madras High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging a writ order.

The Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K.Surender held, “When the District Registrar has no power to adjudicate, the civil rights of the parties, he ought not to have cancelled the sale deeds. Such a power has been conferred only on the Civil Court and such declarations cannot be given based on summary proceedings. In the event of declaring the document as fraudulent by the District Registrar, merely by conducting summary proceedings, it would infringe the civil rights of the parties regarding the properties and more so, right to property is of constitutional right and Article 300 A of the Constitution of India gets violated, since such right can be taken away only by the authority of law.”

Advocate D.Ravichander represented the Appellant while Addl. Govt. Pleader B.Ramasamy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A complaint was instituted by the respondents to nullify three sale deeds. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Government of Puducherry, entertained the complaint under Section 68(2) read with Section 75(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. And enquiry was conducted and three sale deeds came to be nullified. This was challenged by way of Writ proceedings by the appellants.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellants that the power assumed by the District Registrar under Section 68(2) of the Act was based on erroneous interpretation of scope of the provision and the word “fraud” under Section 68(2) would have a restricted meaning so as to correct an error, if any, made during registration of a document.

As per the respondents, the District Registrar exercised his power under section 68(2) as well as the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration, as it was a transaction between husband and wife, and a fraud came to be committed.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the parties had chosen to file a civil suit and a counterclaim, which were pending. The Bench explained that Section 68 of the Registration Act is all about the controlling power of the Registrar and the Inspector General. As per the Bench, the power to nullify registered documents is not traceable under Section 68(2) of the Act. The Bench also noticed that the Inspector General of Registration, Puducherry, issued a circular dated August 5, 2021, in connection with the execution of fraudulent registration of documents, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

“There is no power conferred under the Registration Act for the District Registrar to cancel the registered document similar to that of Section 77A of the Registration Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2022). The said Section 77A was also declared as ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the power to cancel the sale deeds is not available to the District Registrar both in the State of Tamil Nadu as well as in the Union Territory of Puducherry”, it held.

The Bench also highlighted how the Constitutional Courts have repeatedly held that the registering Authority is not empowered to go into the civil rights of parties. “The competent Civil Court of law alone is empowered to declare the civil rights and the registering Authority has no jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate the disputed facts regarding civil rights of the parties in the present case”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that only in the event of fraud apparent on record, the registering Authority can interfere, but not otherwise. The Bench made it clear that the registering Authority is not empowered to usurp the power of the civil Court, and such exercise of powers is akin to the powers of the civil Court. Considering that both the litigations were pending before the competent civil Court of law and the complaint under Section 68(2) was filed in the year 2016, after a lapse of 3 years from the date of institution of the civil suit, the Bench stated, “Therefore, it would be not appropriate on the part of the District Registrar to entertain the complaint during the pendency of the civil suit and pass orders nullifying three sale deeds registered under the provisions of the Act. The District Registrar has not only exceeded his power conferred under the Act, but such a power exercised is not available to him under Section 68(2) of the Act.”

Taking note of the fact that the writ Court had mainly proceeded based on the facts relatable to the alleged fraud, which could not be adjudicated in a writ proceeding and it was a disputed fact raised between the parties, the Bench held that all these grounds were to be raised in the civil suit as well as in the counter claim instituted between the parties. Thus, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “The civil Court is requested to deal with the issue independently and un-influenced by the observations made in the present order.”

Cause Title: Gurumurthi v. The District Registrar (Case No.: W.A.No.1016 of 2023)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate D.Ravichander

Respondent: Addl. Govt. Pleader B.Ramasamy, Advocate S.Patrick

Click here to read/download Order