While quashing the Check Slip issued by the Sub-registrar (third respondent) stating that the reasons stated in the Check Slip are not in consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the Madras High Court directed the third respondent to register the documents.

The High Court held so while considering a petition, whereby the subject property was attached on the basis of a letter sent by police to the Registering Authority and its owner was prevented from dealing with the said property due to a criminal case pending against him.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that “Mere registration of a criminal case or a letter from the Inspector of Police stating about the criminal case, is not a bar for the Registering Authority to register the document, if any document has been presented by the petitioner, which is otherwise in consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908”.

Advocate L. Chandrakumar appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate C. Jayaprakash appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner claimed that he is the absolute owner and is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property situated at Salem District. In the meanwhile, a criminal case was registered against him and the investigation is going on. Since his property was attached, he approached the High Court for quashing of the criminal case, which was dismissed. Hence, he filed the present petition claiming that the pendency of the criminal case cannot stand in the way of the petitioner dealing with the property, unless such properties are attached by the Competent Court of Law in the manner contemplated.

After considering the submission, the Bench observed that the property cannot be attached nor can the Sub-Registrar refuse to register under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, merely based on the letter sent by the Inspector of Police.

Although the refusal for registration of a document is contemplated under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908, the Bench clarified that the Inspector of Police by merely sending a letter to the Registering Authority, cannot prevent the owner from dealing with the property.

The Bench elaborated that the pendency of the criminal case or the letter of the Inspector of Police, cannot be recognized for the purpose of refusal of registration under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

“If at all, the fourth respondent is aggrieved or the land given by the fourth respondent to the petitioner, is to be protected, the petitioner should approach the Competent Civil Court of Law and only in the event of an order from the Competent Civil Court of Law, such registration can be prevented and not otherwise”, added the Bench.

Therefore, the Bench observed that the fourth respondent should approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of attaching the property or not to alienate the property during the pendency of the criminal case or till the money due to the fourth respondent has been realized.

Cause Title: Gopi Rajhah M v. State and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: MHC: 3721]

Click here to read/download the Order


Madras High CourtJustice SM SubramaniamRegistration Act

Pankaj Bajpai