Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Sub Registrar of the Department of Registration to delete the entry relating to petitioner’s land based on the order passed by the Additional District Judge, from the Encumbrance Register, the Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J. held that pleadings do not satisfy the requirements both under the Registration Act, 1908 and under the Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, cannot be registered and entries cannot be made.
Hence, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the registrar to delete the entry made in the encumbrance certificate within two weeks from the receipt of this order.
Background
The controversy in this writ petition arises from the registration of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, wherein an application filed by the respondent 3 seeking a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance was dismissed. Despite the dismissal, the order was registered, causing difficulties for the petitioner in dealing with the property.
The Court had viewed in its order dated 12-02-2025 that the order passed by the Civil Court does not create any right over the property for the respondent 3 and inspite of the same, the order has been registered by the Registrar. As a result, what the respondent 3 was not able to achieve before the Civil Court has now been achieved by way of showing an encumbrance over the property.
The Special Government Pleader had pointed out that such practices have been continuing for some time, with directions from the Court to register even certified copies of plaints in suits, although these do not confer any title or right over the property.
The Court is now considering the larger issue of whether such registrations should be allowed, given that plaints themselves do not create rights under Section 2(14) of the Registration Act.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that there are numerous instances where an innocent purchaser of the immovable property is not aware of a pending litigation, and he purchases the property. This situation raises the question of whether such circumstances can serve as a valid ground for the Court to issue directions to the registering authorities to register the pleadings in a case and to make the necessary entry in the encumbrance certificate.
The Court highlighted that the registration of a document is governed by the Registration Act. For a document to be registered, it must strictly fall within the requirements outlined in the Act, and no document can be registered if it goes beyond the scope of the Act. What is compulsorily registrable is addressed under Section 17 of the Act, while documents for which registration is optional are dealt with under Section 18 of the Act.
The Court reiterated that the transfer of property primarily pertains to transactions or acts in law, whereas both the Registration Act and the Stamp Act deal specifically with documents or instruments. The Court clarified that unless there is a formal document or instrument, these statutes do not apply. Pleadings by themselves do not meet the requirements under Section 17 or Section 18 of the Registration Act for registration, nor do they satisfy the definition of an “instrument” under Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act.
The Court noted that if the intention is to prevent the owner of the property from dealing with the immovable property, the simplest method would be to register the pleading before the Registration office and create an entry in the encumbrance certificate. Once such an entry is made, it could effectively prevent the owner from dealing with the property, as any potential purchaser would be likely to seek the removal or deletion of that entry before proceeding with the transaction.
As a result, the Court concluded that a Court cannot, through judicial fiat, direct the registering authority to register pleadings or make the necessary entries in the encumbrance certificate. While such directions may be well-intended, the Court pointed out that there are potential negative consequences or “flip sides” to issuing such orders, which could lead to complications in the registration process and affect the integrity of property transaction.
The Court also noted the contradictory views in previous directions, where, on one hand, it was directed to register pleadings in a suit and make the necessary entry in the encumbrance certificate, while on the other hand, the Court held that there is no bar on dealing with property during the pendency of the suit, with such transactions being governed by the rule of lis pendens. The Court acknowledged that these conflicting views would only lead to confusion and not provide a clear solution.
In light of this, the Court held that the earlier directions issued in previous orders by this Court were inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act and therefore must be considered per incuriam.
The Court also clarified that pleadings filed in a civil suit do not meet the criteria of a document or instrument under the Registration Act and the Stamp Act, and thus, they cannot be registered, nor can entries be made in the encumbrance certificate. Consequently, the Inspector General of Registration was not required to issue any circular regarding the registration of pleadings.
The Court reiterated the principle that any transaction during the pendency of a suit is governed by the rule of lis pendens and continues to apply. The Court concluded that it is for the legislature to amend the Registration Act and Stamp Act to address such situations, as the Courts cannot issue directions that contradict the existing provisions under these Acts.
Finally, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the registrar to delete the entry made in the encumbrance certificate within two weeks from the receipt of this order.
[M.Gunasekaran v. District Registrar, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 1465, decided on 27-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): S.Sucharitha
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate
