Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs S. P. Velayutham & Ors.

226 stands completely ousted - When a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was utter failure on the part of the Registering Authority to stick to the mandate of law, the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but does not declare the very execution of the document to be null and void 637 Examining whether the Registering Authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 - Therefore, the Single Judge rightly applied the law and allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant, but the Division Bench got carried away by the sound and fury created by the contesting respondents. Registration Act, 1908 - ss. 32, 33, 34 & 69(1) – Tamil Nadu Registration Rules - R u l e s 4 6 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 2 - A careful look at Sections

32 and 33 will show that while speaking about PoA, these provisions do not use the word “registration” - While Section 32(c) uses the words “executed and authenticated”, Section 33(1) uses the words “recognised” and “authenticated” - Therefore it is clear that the word “authenticated” is not to be understood to be the same as “registered” - Whenever an agent is authorised to execute a document and present the same for registration and he accordingly executes the document in terms of PoA, he becomes the actual executant in so far as the Registering Authority is concerned and that therefore he becomes entitled under Section 33(a) to present it for registration.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Actually, the registration of a document comprises of three essential steps among others. They are, (i) execution of the document, by the executant signing or affixing his left hand thumb impression; (ii) presenting the document for registration and admitting to the Registering Authority the execution of such document; and (iii) the act of registration of the document. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without the relief of declaration that the registered document is null and void, what gets challenged, is a combination of all the aforesaid three steps in the process of execution and registration. The first of the aforesaid three steps may be challenged in a suit for declaration that the registered document is null and void, either on the ground that the executant did not have a valid title to pass on or on the ground that what was found in the document was not the signature of the executant or on the ground that the signature of the executant was obtained by fraud, coercion etc. The second step of presentation of the document and admitting the execution of the same, may also be challenged on the very same grounds hereinabove stated. Such objections to the first and second of the aforesaid three steps are substantial and they strike at the very root of creation of the document. A challenge to the very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on the execution, is congenital in nature. Therefore, such a challenge, by its very nature, has to be made only before the civil court and certainly not before the writ court. [Paras 49 & 50][664-B-F]

1.2. The third step namely the act of registration, is something that the Registering Authority is called upon to do statutorily. While the executant of the document and the person claiming under the document (claimant) are the only actors involved in the first two steps, the Registering Officer is the actor in the third step. Apart from the third step which is wholly in the domain of the Registering Authority, he may also have a role to play in the second step when a document is presented for registration and the execution thereof is admitted. The role that is assigned to the Registrar in the second step is that of verification of the identity of the person presenting the document for registration. Thus, the first two steps in the process of registration are substantial in nature, with the parties to the document playing the role of the lead actors and the Registering Authority playing a guest role in the second step. The third step is procedural in nature where the Registering Authority is the lead actor. [Paras 51 & 52][664-F-H; 665-A]

1.3. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a registered document is null and void, all the aforesaid three steps which comprise the entire process of execution and registration come under challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a document or the right and title of a person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy will only be to go to the civil court. But where a party questions only the failure of the Registering Authority to perform his statutory duties in the course of the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform their duties within the bounds of law. It must be noted that when a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

226 finds that there was utter failure on the part of the Registering Authority to stick to the mandate of law, the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but does not declare the very execution of the document to be null and void. A declaration that a document is nulland void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the Registering Authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law. It is well settled that if something is required by law to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not otherwise. Examining whether the Registering Authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. However, it is needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to exercise jurisdiction in cases where the violations ofprocedure on the part of the Registering Authority are not gross or the violations do not shock the conscience of the Court. Lack of jurisdiction is completely different from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. [Para 53][665-B-G]

2. In the case on hand, the appellant has not sought a declaration from the High Court that the execution of the document in question was null and void or that there was no title for the executant to transfer the property. The appellant assailed before the High Court, only the act of omission on the part of the Registering Authority to check up whether the person who claimed to be the power agent, hadthe power of conveyance and the power of presenting the document for registration, especially in the light to the statutory rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly applied the law and allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant, but the Division Bench got carried away by the sound and fury created by the contesting respondents on the basis of (i) pendency of the civil suits; (ii) findings recorded by the Special Court for CBI cases; and (iii) the order passed by this Court in the SLP arising out of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. [Para 54][665-G-H; 666-A-B]

3. Arguments were advanced on the question whether the Registering Authority is carrying out an administrative act or a quasi-judicial act in the performance of his statutory duties. But we think it is not relevant for determining the availability of writ jurisdiction. If the Registering Authority is found to be exercising a quasi-judicial power, the exercise of such a power will still be amenable to judicialreview under Article 226, subject to the exhaustion of the remedies statutorily available. On the contrary if the Registering Authority is found to be performing only an administrative act, even then the High Court is empowered to see whether he performed the duties statutorily ordained upon him in the manner prescribed by law. [Para 55][666-C-D]

4. Therefore, in the light of (i) the Tamilnadu Registration Rules discussed above; (ii) the statutory scheme of Sections 32 to 35 of the Act as well as other provisions as amended by the State of Tamilnadu;and (iii) the distinction between a challenge to the first 2 steps in the process of execution of a document and the third step concerning registration, this Court is of the considered view that the Division bench of the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. If the Registering Officer under the Act is construed as performing only a mechanical role without any independent mind of his own, then even Government properties may be sold and the documents registered by unscrupulous persons driving the parties to go to civil court. Such an interpretation may not advance the cause of justice. [Para 58][666-G; 667-A-B]

Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016)

10 SCC 767 : [2016] 12 SCR 26; Amarnath vs. Gian Chand (2022) SCC Online SC-102 - relied on

Rajni Tandon vs. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar & Anr (2009) 14 SCC 782 : [2009] 11 SCR 686; Thansingh Nathmal vs. Superintendent of Taxes (1964) 6 SCR 654 : Sarvepalli Ramaiah vs. District Collector (2019) 4 SCC

500 : [2019] 5 SCR 372; Latif Estate Line India Ltd. vs. Hadeeja Ammal 2011 (2) CTC 1; Thota Ganga

Laxmi and Another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2010) 15 SCC 206; Raj Kumar Soni vs. State of U.P. (2007) 10 SCC 635 - referred to.