K. Ramalingam vs The Sub Registrar, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District and T.S. Ajoy Maniyakar

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be

pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.7.2009, and to direct the

respondent to register the Gift Deed bearing No. P3/2009, dated 13.3.2009.

The petitioner has stated that he is the owner of the land having an extent of 0.05.5 hectares, in surveyNo.11/1A, 1.33.5 hectares, in survey No.

11/3A and 0.18.5hectares, in survey No. 12/3B of Kundallapatti village, Krishnagiri District. The petitioner''s father late Kandasamy was a teacher

in the Government Primary School at Kundallapatti. Therefore, the petitioner had proposed to gift the land belonging to him, to the Government

Primary School at Kundallapatti, to provide sufficient space for its expansion. Accordingly, he had executed a Gift Deed, on13.3.2009, in favour

of the Chief Educational Officer and presented the said document for registration before the respondent. Having collected the requisite stamp duty

and the registration fees, he had refused to register the same stating that a civil suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, relating to the property in question, is

pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it is not open to the respondent to refuse the registration of the Gift Deed,

executed in favor of the Chief Educational Officer, krishnagiri, for the reason that a civil suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, is pending on the file of the

District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, in which he is one of the defendants.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the respondent had erred in concluding that the Chief Educational

Officer, Krishnagiri, who is the second defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, had refused to accept the gift, made in respect of the lands in

question.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that it is not open to there gistering authority to go into the question of title

of the lands in question and the alleged refusal of the donee to accept the gift.

He had also submitted that the refusal of there respondent to register the document is against the standing orders issued by the Government and

the provisions of the Registration Act and the rules framed there under. He had placed before this Court the proceedings of the Inspector General

of Registration, Chennai, dated 2.3.2005, which reads as follows:

Standing orders 238 is substituted as under:

238 (a) An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering officer unless such order

is to the registering officer.

(b) No document shall be accepted for registration where the registering officer has been imp leaded as a defendant/respondent and restrained by

the Court not to register any document in respect of any property. In such cases the registering officer, if insisted by the registrant, shall return the

document noting the fact of the order of the Court in the ""Check Slip"".

This order shall be communicated to all registering officers immediately.

This order can be made applicable to pending documents.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the Gift Deed presented by the petitioner, for registration, on

13.3.2009, was assigned No. P3/2009, and kept pending without registration, as the civil suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009, relating to the properties in

question, was pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri. Further, the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, had refused to

accept the gift made by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the second respondent had submitted that the revenue records, including the patta relating to the properties in question,

stand in the name of the second respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009. The ''Adangal'' relating to the said properties

shows that the properties are in the possession of the second respondent.

The learned counsel for the second respondent had further submitted that the Chief Educational Officer, krishnagiri, the donee, had refused to

accept the gift made by the petitioner, in view of the fact that he had no title in respect of the suit properties. Therefore, the respondent had rightly

rejected the request of the petitioner to register the Gift Deed bearing No. P3/2009.

The learned counsel for the second respondent had further submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.244 of 2008, on the file

of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, seeking declaration of his title in respect of the properties in question. However, he had withdrawn the

said suit.

He had further submitted that the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, had not granted an order of interim injunction against the respondent

herein, who is the defendant in the said suit, in O.S.No.82 of 2009,restraining him from registering the Gift Deed, as the Chief Educational Officer,

krishnagiri, who is also a defendant in the said suit, had refused to accept the gift. Therefore, the refusal of the respondent to register the Gift Deed

presented for registration, by the petitioner, cannot be held to be arbitrary and illegal.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of

the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sprayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be

granted, at this stage.

From the records available before this Court, it is seen that the petitioner had filed a civil suit, inO.S.No.244 of 2008, on the file of the District

Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, seeking declaration of his title, in respect of the properties in question, showing T.S. Ajay, as a defendant. Later, the

petitioner had withdrawn the said suit. While so, T.S. Ajai had filed a civil suit, inO.S.No.82 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court,

Krishnagiri, showing the petitioner herein as the first defendant, the Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, has been arrayed as the second

defendant, the first respondent herein, namely, the Sub-Registrar, Kaveripattinam, and the State of Tamil Nadu, have been shown as the third and

the fourth defendants, respectively. While so, the petitioner had presented a Gift Deed, on13.3.2009, before the respondent for registration.

However, the respondent had refused to number the Gift Deed presented by the petitioner, as the petitioner could not show, prima facie, that the

lands in question, the subject matter of the Gift Deed, belong to the petitioner.

It is also seen that the Chief Educational Officer, krishnagiri, the second defendant in the said civil suit, had refused to accept the gift made by

the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the refusal of the respondent to register the Gift Deed, dated 13.3.2009, presented by

the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. Even though it is a well settled position in law that the registering authority cannot conduct a roving enquiry, in

respect of the title of the properties sought to be registered, it would be obligatory on the part of the person presenting a document for registration

to show, prima facie, that he is entitled to register such a document, in respect of the properties concerned. Further, in the present case, the Chief

Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, the done, had refused to accept the gift made by the petitioner, by way of the Gift Deed, dated13.3.2009. In such

circumstances, this court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 10.7.2009 and to direct the respondent to

register the Gift Deed, dated 13.3.2009, presented by the petitioner. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No

costs.