Madras High Court: Pleadings Filed In Civil Suit Not Document Or Instrument; Cannot Be Registered & No Entries Can Be Made In Encumbrance Certificate

The Madras High Court held that the pleadings filed in a Civil Suit are not Documents or Instruments and hence, cannot be registered and no entries can be made in the encumbrance certificate.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition seeking for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Sub Registrar to delete the entry relating to a land from the Encumbrance Register.

A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed, “This Court holds that pleadings that are filed in a civil suit does not assume the character of a document or an instrument and in such an event, the Registration Act and the Stamp Act will not come into play and consequently, pleadings cannot be entertained and registered and no entries can be made in the encumbrance certificate. In view of the same, the Inspector General of registration need not issue any circular in this regard.”

The Bench said that such pleadings do not satisfy the requirements both under the Registration Act, 1908 and under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, cannot be registered and entries cannot be made.

Advocate S. Sucharitha appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Government Advocate P. Harish appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Writ Petition in this case was filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Sub-Registrar to delete the entry made in the encumbrance certificate relating to a property belonging to the Petitioner based on an Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the dismissal of an Application filed for temporary injunction, does not create or limit or declare or extinguish any right, title or interest and therefore, the Respondents ought not to have entertained the document and registered the same and made the entry in the encumbrance certificate.

On the contrary, the Special Government Pleader for the Respondents contended that the Sub Registrar ought not to have entertained such Order, dismissing the Application filed for interim injunction and register the same. It was further argued that the registration of a document or an instrument must be relatable to those which have been specifically identified under the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act. It was also submitted that the pleadings can never be brought within the term of a document or an instrument and therefore, the same cannot be made a subject matter of registration

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “Both the learned Single Judges have presumably issued directions since there are many bonafide purchasers, who purchased properties without being aware of the pendency of a litigation and thereafter, they are put to grave prejudice. My mind is redolent with a oft quoted adage “hard facts makes bad law”.

The Court said that there are numerous instructions where an innocent purchaser of the immovable property is not aware of a pending litigation and he purchases the property and that the question is as to whether that can be a ground for the Court to issue directions to the registering authorities to register the pleadings in a case and to make necessary entry in the encumbrance certificate.

“It is now too well settled that a transfer of property is concerned primarily with transactions or Acts-in-law and whereas the, registration Act and the Stamp Act are concerned with documents or instruments only. Unless there is a document or an instrument, these two statutes will not have any application. The pleadings perse does not satisfy any of the requirements under Section 17 and/or 18 of the Registration Act. Similarly, the pleadings does not satisfy the requirements of the definition of an instrument under Section 2 (14) of the Stamp Act”, it further reiterated.

The Court added that a Court through a judicial fiat cannot direct the registering authority to register the pleadings and make the necessary entries in the encumbrance certificate and even though, such directions are well intended, it has a flip side to it.

“… if the owner of the property should be stopped from dealing with the immovable property, the easiest method to adopt will be to register the pleading before the Registration office and create an entry in the encumbrance certificate. Once that is done, the owner of the property will not be able to deal with the property since the purchaser would want that entry to be removed or deleted”, it also noted.

The Court remarked that on the one hand, there are directions issued by the High Court to register the pleadings in a Suit and to make the necessary entry and on the other hand, it has also held that there is no bar to deal with the property during the pendency of the Suit and at the best, such a transaction will only be hit by the Rule of lis pendens; therefore, such contradicting views will only create more confusion instead of providing any solution.

“… this Court holds that the earlier directions issued in CRP NPD No.1987 of 2-14 dated 03.07.2019 is not in line with the provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act and hence, must be held to be per incuriam. The subsequent order passed in WP No.34182 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 has merely followed the earlier order”, it held.

The Court clarified that the first principle that occupies the field viz., a transaction that takes place during the pendency of a Suit will be governed by the rule of lis pendens, will continue to operate.

“Ultimately, it is for the legislature to bring about a necessary amendment in the registration Act and in the Stamp Act to deal with the situation and the Courts cannot issue directions which will run contrary to the existing provisions under the Registration Act and the Stamp Act”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Sub Registrar to delete the entry that was made while entertaining the Dismissal Order, within a period of two weeks.

Cause Title- M. Gunasekaran v. The District Registrar & Ors. (Case Number: WP No. 4176 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Order