- (1.) THE prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent and also to direct the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the lands at Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.
(2.) BRIEF case of the petitioner are as follows: (a) Petitioner is a resident of Thiruvudayarpatti Village in Tirupathur Taluk in Sivagangai District. Her husband is doing business in Malaysia. Petitioner and her son are residing in their native village. When the petitioner intended to buy a property in the said village, they approached one Shanmugavalli of Mahibalanpatti Village in Tirupathur Taluk in Sivagangai District, who offered to sell her lands to an extent of 20 cents out of total 58 cents held by her father Veeraiah Ambalam in S.No.82, Thiruvudayarpatti Village, Sivagangai District. Veeraiah Ambalam died intestate on 03.12.1993 leaving behind the said Shanmugavalli, her sister Sakunthala and her brother Ramanathan as the only heirs. The Tahsildar, Thirupathur has also issued a legal heir certificate on 31.01.1995 certifying that the said Shanmugavalli and her sister and brother are the only legal heirs of late Veeraiah Ambalam. (b) On the death of her father, the patta in respect of the said lands in S.No.82/10 stood jointly in the name of Shanmugavalli and her siblings. Since she was in need of money, petitioner agreed to purchase the share of said Shanmugavalli in the 58 cents in S.No.82/10. Sale consideration given by the petitioner was duly accepted by Shanmugavalli in the presence of her brother and sister and she has also executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner for the sale of land to an extent of 20 cents out of 59 cents. When the sale deed was presented by the petitioner along with necessary fees for registration on 20.06.2012 before the respondent, he asked them to come in the afternoon. When they again visited the office of the respondent, the same was returned on the same day vide impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.93/12 stating that the subject matter of registration had been sold by one Baskaran to one Muthukrishnan and Kalaiselvi jointly vide Document No.615/2005 to an extent of 59 cents. It has been further stated in the impugned proceedings that out of 59 cents, Kalaiselvi sold her portion of 29.5 cents vide Document No.2123/2012 to one Muthukumar on 20.06.2012 forenoon. As such, the sale deed cannot be registered since Shanmugavalli has no title to it and only Kalaiselvi has title to the said property. (c) It is the further case of the petitioner that neither the said Kalaiselvi nor her predecessor-in-title has any right or interest over the property in S.No.82/10 and they were asked to come in the afternoon by the respondent to register the sale deed and thereafter, the respondent had registered the sale deed of the said Kalaiselvi on the same day and had chosen to return the sale deed submitted by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the vendor has no title to the property. The respondent has no jurisdiction to decide on the title of a particular land and to refuse registration of a document presented for registration. Only the civil court has the jurisdiction to decide on the title of any property. Hence, the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that check slip No.93/2012 dated 20.06.2012 issued by the respondent in respect of the sale deed dated 20.06.2012 in favour of the petitioner is based on departmental instructions issued to the registering officer by the Inspector General of Registration. It is not in dispute that the petitioner wanted to buy the land from one Shanmugavalli of Mahibalanpatti Village, who, according to her, inherited it from her father and the joint patta stood in the name of Shanmugavalli and her siblings and also the share of Shanmugavalli, namely, 20 cents out of 58 cents. In the Circular issued by the Inspector General Registration, it is reiterated that since the object and purpose of the Registration Act is to provide information to public regarding the transaction that had taken place in a property, in order to fulfill the objects of the Act, the Sub-Registrars should verify the previous original documents to ascertain the right over the property by the persons who executed the documents. Accordingly, when the sale deed was presented for registration before the respondent on 20.06.2012, the respondent verified the previous original documents / Patta and other revenue records to ascertain the right over the property by the person who executed the document. On verification, it was found that the total extent of 59 cents (0.24.0 Hectares) in S.No.82/10 Thiruvudaiyarpatti Village was sold to Veera Muthukrishnan and Kalaiselvi through a sale deed by one Baskaran, who had purchased the property through a sale deed. Subsequently, the said Veera Muthukrishnan and Kalaiselvi have sold their respective half shares each to one Rama.Muthukumar through sale deeds registered as No.2127/2007 and 2123/2012 respectively. Sale deed No.2123/2012 was registered only on the forenoon of 20.06.2012 by the respondent. Thus, as per the said two sale deeds, one Rama.Muthukumar had purchased the entire extent of 59 cents in S.No.82/10. As per the particulars available, the vendor Shanmugavalli has no right over the property sold. Hence, this impediment for registration was intimated to the petitioner vide check slip. Since the petitioner's document was presented subsequent to the registration of document No.2123/2012, the petitioner's document was returned for valid reasons. Hence, based on the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration only, the respondent has passed the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has no legal authority to refuse the document presented for registration stating that the property which is the subject matter of the document has already been sold by another person to third party. The respondent, by issuing the impugned order, has decided the title over the petition property which could be done only by the Civil Court and not by the respondent. In this regard, by inviting the attention to the joint patta issued by the Tahsildar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the joint patta issued by the Tahsildar would show that the property stands in the name of the petitioner and her sister and brother. In the circumstances, the respondent is bound to register the document and if there is any dispute over the title, the parties have to agitate the same before the Civil Court.;