Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (10) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (10) TMI 1142 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the unilateral registration of the Extinguishment Deed by the Society.
2. Authority of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and Inspector General (Registration) to cancel the registration of documents.
3. Applicability of the general principle laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case to the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare registered deeds void ab initio.
5. The conduct of the appellant in pursuing multiple remedies and the effect of the compromise deed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the unilateral registration of the Extinguishment Deed by the Society:
The Society unilaterally executed an Extinguishment Deed on 9th August 2001, cancelling the allotment of Plot No. 7-B at Punjabi Bagh, Bhopal, to the appellant's mother due to a violation of the Society's Bye-laws. The Sub-Registrar registered this deed, and subsequent deeds were executed in favor of other parties. Justice V. Gopala Gowda found that the Sub-Registrar had no authority to register the Extinguishment Deed unilaterally and declared the action void ab initio. Justice Dipak Misra, however, opined that the registration was in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and did not require the presence of both parties at the time of registration.

2. Authority of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) and Inspector General (Registration) to cancel the registration of documents:
The Sub-Registrar and Inspector General rejected the appellant's application to cancel the registration of the Extinguishment Deed, stating that they lacked jurisdiction to cancel registered documents. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the Registration Act, 1908, does not confer the power to cancel registered documents on these authorities. The appropriate remedy for challenging the validity of such documents lies before a competent court.

3. Applicability of the general principle laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case to the State of Madhya Pradesh:
Justice Dipak Misra observed that the principle stated in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case, which prohibits the registration of unilateral cancellation deeds, was based on specific rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the absence of similar rules in Madhya Pradesh, this principle could not be applied. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Registration Act, 1908, does not mandate the presence of both parties for the registration of documents.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare registered deeds void ab initio:
The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised when an alternative remedy is available. The Court also noted that the appellant's conduct in pursuing multiple remedies and entering into a compromise deed undermined his case.

5. The conduct of the appellant in pursuing multiple remedies and the effect of the compromise deed:
The appellant entered into a compromise deed with the Society and subsequent purchasers, accepting a consideration amount of ?6.50 Lakh. Despite this, he continued to pursue multiple legal remedies, including a writ petition and a dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 1960. The Supreme Court found that the appellant's conduct in pursuing multiple proceedings and entering into a compromise deed precluded him from seeking relief in the writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction is an equitable remedy, and the appellant's conduct did not justify such relief.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the appellant should pursue his statutory remedy under the Act of 1960 or any other appropriate legal remedy. The Court also clarified that the registration of the Extinguishment Deed by the Sub-Registrar was not fraudulent or nullity in law, and any irregularity in the registration process should be challenged before a competent court.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates