Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act cannot be invoked through Article 226 jurisdiction.

The appellant, Managing Partner of Ashok Finance, challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.26553 of 2023.

Respondents 1 to 4 had sought certiorarified mandamus to quash the District Registrar’s order dated 27.09.2023 and to direct the registration and release of a document presented as pending Document No.60/2023 dated 11.05.2023.

The Sub-Registrar had issued a refusal check slip on the ground that a suit, O.S.No.907 of 2022, concerning the property was pending before the Principal Sub Court, Karur.

The appellant contended that the property document had been pledged as security for money advanced by him and that the dispute involved questions of fact requiring adjudication by the civil court.

The District Registrar declined to interfere with the Sub-Registrar’s decision.

The learned Single Judge held that the Registration Department could not refuse registration of a lawfully executed document merely because a creditor objected, and directed registration.

The learned Single Judge also directed the civil court to dispose of the appellant’s application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment before judgment.

The civil court subsequently accepted another property as security, thereby protecting the appellant’s interests.

In the writ appeal, the appellant additionally alleged that the respondents had falsely represented that the document was missing, despite it being in the appellant’s possession, and had obtained a police non-traceable certificate.

Whether the Registration Department could refuse registration of the document merely because a civil suit concerning the property was pending and the appellant, as creditor, objected to the transaction?

Whether the alleged false representation regarding the missing document warranted action under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Whether the order of the learned Single Judge directing registration of the document required interference in the writ appeal?

The Court applied the principle that the Registering Authority is not entitled to adjudicate disputed questions of title, pledge, liability, or other complex questions of fact arising from a civil dispute; such matters must be decided by the competent civil court.

It accepted the learned Single Judge’s view that an objection by a creditor does not, by itself, authorise the Registration Department to refuse registration of a lawfully executed document.

The Court also considered Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, which contemplate penal and investigative proceedings in relation to offences connected with registration, but held that those provisions could not be invoked by the High Court itself, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, in the absence of a complaint or registered FIR.

The decision in Navin Kumar Rai v. Surendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 145, was distinguished because it arose from proceedings concerning the quashing of an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where an investigation into the alleged fraud was already underway.

The Court further relied on the fact that the appellant’s financial interests had been protected through security furnished in the civil proceedings.

The Court held that the appellant’s contention that the property document had been pledged as security raised a disputed factual issue concerning the underlying loan transaction and could not be conclusively determined by the Registration Authorities or in writ proceedings.

The pendency of the recovery suit and the creditor’s objection therefore did not constitute a valid basis to refuse registration of the document.

The appellant’s interests had also been adequately safeguarded because the civil court had considered his application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC and accepted another property as security.

Although the appellant alleged that the respondents had made a false statement regarding the missing document, the Court noted that no complaint had been lodged and no FIR had been registered.

Consequently, the statutory procedure under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act could not be initiated or directed by the High Court merely while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

Since the factual and financial concerns raised by the appellant were either matters for the civil court or were otherwise protected, no ground existed to interfere with the Single Judge’s order.

It held that the Registration Authorities could not refuse registration solely on the basis of the pending civil suit or the creditor’s objection, and that Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act could not be invoked in the writ proceedings in the absence of a complaint or FIR.

Finding that the appellant’s interests were sufficiently protected by the security furnished before the civil court, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs.