District Registrars Are Quasi-Judicial Authorities, Can't Cancel Sale Deed By Conducting Summary Proceedings: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the District Registrar only had powers to form an opinion regarding errors, omissions or violations during the course of registration or violations of procedures under the Act. The bench noted that for cancelling Sale Deeds, a trial was warranted which could only be undertaken by a Civil court and not the Registrar.

“Therefore, the scope of Section 68(2) of the Act, cannot be expanded for the purpose of cancellation of Sale Deed by conducting summary enquiry. If such powers are exercised, then the District Registrars are usurping the powers of the Civil Court of Law, which is impermissible. To cancel the Sale Deed, the trial nature proceedings are warranted. Such an exercise cannot be made by the Registering Authority or the District Registrar under the Registration Act,” the court observed.

The court further added that though the Registrars had power to refuse registration of documents if found to be fraudulent, this power was limited. The court noted that while conducting a summary enquiry, if the District Registrar found that there was a prima facie proof to establish fraud or impersonation, only then the document could be cancelled. Thus, if there was any iota of doubt on the prima facie case, the District Registrar was not empowered to adjudicate the issue on merits and was bound to relegate the parties to the civil court.

“Comprehensive procedures contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Rule of Practice and the Specific Relief Act provides liberty to all the parties to establish and defend their case by producing documents and adducing evidence. Such a right of adjudication cannot be taken away by allowing the Registrar to declare the registered documents as null and void,” the court noted.

The court further observed that property right being a constitutional right under Article 300A of the constitution, a cancellation of document had larger repercussion on the civil rights of persons. Thus, in the court's opinion, if the property of people was to be infringed by way of a summary proceedings by the District Registrar, the same would result in unconstitutionality. The court thus underlined that the powers given to the District Registrar under the Registration Act could not be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of civil disputes or civil rights which was conferred through conveyances, documents etc.

The court made the observations in a plea filed by Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd challenging the cancellation of sale deeds. The company had purchased the subject property from a vendor in 2007 who had purchased the subject property in 2004. The individual respondents claimed title over the proper and submitted an application to the District Registrar seeking cancellation of sale deeds in favour of the vendor and the company. The District Registrar, after conducting summary proceedings, cancelled the sale deeds.

This order was confirmed by the Inspector General of Registration on appeal. When the company approached the high court, a single judge, observing that there was a title dispute, directed the parties to approach the Civil court and disposed of the plea without granting any relief. The company had thus filed the present appeal.

The division bench noted that in the present case, neither the District Registrar nor the Inspector General of Registration had powers to cancel the sale deed executed by following the relevant procedures of law. The court thus noted that the remedy available for any aggrieved person was to approach the competent high court seeking cancellation of the sale deed or to declare them as null and void.

At the same time, the court also added that when the company approached the High Court, the issue was not with respect to the title but regarding the power of the Registering Officer, District Registrar and the Appellate Authority under the Act. The court thus noted that the writ court had failed to consider the issue of the scope of cancellation of the registered sale deed. Thus, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the single judge.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Ms Deepika Murali

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr B.Vijay, Additional Government Pleader, Mr M.V.Seshachari

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 140

Case Title: Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd v The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps

Case No: WA No.3391 of 2023