Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr.Justice N. Sathish Kumar
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr.Justice N. Sathish Kumar
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.10.2023, which cancelled a registered document. The cancellation arose from a complaint by the 4th respondent alleging that the 5th respondent had fraudulently sold an undivided share of land with specific boundaries to the petitioner. The land in question comprised 77 cents allotted to the 5th respondent in a prior suit. The 5th respondent had sold half of this share to the petitioner. The registration authorities, acting on the complaint, cancelled the document on the ground of fraudulent registration. The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the impugned cancellation order as illegal.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the registration authorities have the power to cancel a registered document on the basis of a complaint alleging fraudulent registration without adjudicating the title dispute.
  2. Whether the showing of specific boundaries in a sale of an undivided share in joint family property renders the registration fraudulent.
  3. Whether the sale of an undivided share with specific boundaries is permissible under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The cancellation order is illegal as it is based on a complaint without proper legal basis.
  • Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act permits a co-sharer to sell an undivided share; the only restriction is that the purchaser cannot claim a specific portion.
  • The showing of boundaries in the document does not make the registration fraudulent.
  • The registration, once complete, cannot be cancelled by the authorities arbitrarily.

Respondents’ Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P [2016 10 SCC 767] The District Registrar or Inspector General of Registration has no jurisdiction to go into disputed title matters while dealing with registration or cancellation. The court relied on this precedent to hold that the cancellation of the registered document by the authorities on a disputed title ground was illegal.
G. Rajasulochana v Inspector General W.P 29706 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024 Reiterates that registration authorities cannot interfere with title disputes or cancel documents on such grounds. Applied to reinforce the principle that entertaining complaints and cancelling registration on disputed title issues is impermissible.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the sale and the powers of registration authorities. It noted that under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, a co-sharer may sell his undivided share, but the purchaser cannot claim a specific portion of the property. The presence of boundaries in the sale document does not amount to fraudulent registration. The court emphasized that once a document is registered, the registration is complete and the authorities lack the power to cancel it based on disputed title allegations. The court relied on binding precedents from the Supreme Court and this High Court, which hold that registration authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes or cancel registrations on such grounds. Therefore, the cancellation order was held to be an abuse of power and legally unsustainable.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of cancellation passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

This decision directly reinstates the validity of the registered document in favor of the petitioner and clarifies that registration authorities cannot cancel documents on disputed title grounds. No broader precedent beyond the application of established principles was set.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Vijayaraj v. The Inspector of Registrars

    WP(MD). No.27381 of 2023

    BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Date : 05/09/2024

    CORAM

    The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR WP(MD). No.27381 of 2023

    and WMP(MD) No.23526 of 2023 Vijayaraj ... Petitioner Vs

    1. The Inspector of Registrars, Inspector of Registration Office, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600028..

    2. The District Registrar (Admn), District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai,

    Kokirakulam,

    Tirunelveli - 9..

    3. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Palayamkottai

    Registration District, Kazhukumalai,

    Tirunelveli District..

    4. Ramkumar,

    5. Ramesh Babu ... Respondents

    1/6

    PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2ndrespondent dated 04.10.2023 vide Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.3852/A3/2023 and quash the same as illegal.

    For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan,

    For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader

    Mr.K.Rajeswaran for R4

    No appearance for R5

    ORDER

    This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 2ndrespondent dated 04.10.2023.

    2. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint has been given by the 4threspondent alleging that the 5threspondent sold the undivided share with specific boundaries to the petitioner herein. Therefore, according to him, it was a fraudulent registration and document and therefore, he gave a complaint. Based on that allegation, the same has been cancelled by the authorities.

    2/6

    3. The brief facts are that 77 cents of land were allotted to the 5th respondent in OS No.72/1986 Sub Court, Tenkasi. The 5threspondent has sold ½ share in favour of the petitioner, however, with boundaries. The same has been sought to be cancelled. Accordingly, it was cancelled by the authorities on the ground that it is a fraudulent registration.

    4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent No.5 was served and his name is printed, none appeared for him. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

    5. At the outset, the very order passed by the authorities clearly indicate how the registering authorities abused its power and gone into rights created in favour of the parties, without even understanding the nuances of law. In law, there is no bar for sale of undivided property in the joint family property. Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act permit the co-sharer to sell the undivided share. The only restriction is that the purchaser cannot seek for specific portion. Therefore, when

    3/6

    being the position of law, merely because the boundaries have been shown in the document, it cannot be held such document is fraudulently registered. Hence, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. However, once the document is registered, the registration is complete and the authorities have no power to cancel the document.

    6. The Apex Court had repeatedly held that the District Registrar or the Inspector General of Registration has no right whatsoever to go into the disputed title in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P.[ 2016 10 SCC

    767] and this Court in G. Rajasulochana v Inspector General made in W.P 29706 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024. Therefore, in the case on hand, entertaining of the complaint by any party and cancelling the document are per se illegal.

    7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

    05.09.2024

    RR

    4/6

    TO

    1. The Inspector of Registrars, Inspector of Registration Office, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600028..

    2. The District Registrar (Admn), District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai,

    Kokirakulam,

    Tirunelveli - 9..

    3. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Palayamkottai

    Registration District, Kazhukumalai,

    Tirunelveli District..

    5/6

    N.SATHISH KUMAR,J

    RR

    ORDER

    IN

    WP(MD) No.27381 of 2023 Date : 05/09/2024

    6/6

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Vijayaraj v. The Inspector of Registrars
    (Sep 5, 2024)