K.K.Rajendran (Died) v. Arukkani

J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) This case is a classic example of rampant corruption that exists in the Registration Department.

¶2The 1st respondent had purchased an extent of 25 cents of land in S.No.197/1 within the specific four boundaries under a sale deed dated

23.12.2005 registered as Doc.No.2293 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Pallipalayam. The schedule of property in the said sale deed as evidenced by the Certified copy issued by the Sub-Registrar on 06.02.2006 reads as follows: brhj;J tpguk; ehkf;fy; hpo. gs;spghisak;

rg;hpo.

gs;spghisak; mf;ucwhuk; fpuhkk; rh;nt vz; 197-1 be/g[/bcwf;/0/41/5f;F g[/V/1/02\f;F jPh;it U:/1/60/ ,j;jPh;it bgw;w g{kpapy; g[/V/0/25 brz;L tptrha g{kp g{uht[k; fpiuak;/ ,jw;F brf;Fge;jp r';ffphp nuhl;Lf;Fk; (fpHf;F)

vdf;F

b$duy;

gth; bfhLj;jthpd; tptrha g{kpf;Fk; (nkw;F) kw;Wk;

(tlf;F)

fe;jrhkp. bgh";rhak;khs;.

Kdpag;gd;

,th;fs; g{kpf;Fk; tptrha g{kpf;Fk; (bjw;F)/

¶3Thereafter, the appellants herein had purchased an extent of 53 cents in S.No.197/1 and 19 cents in S.No.197/3 under the sale deed dated

26.09.2007. Item No.1 of the schedule to the said sale deed dated

26.09.2007 is shown to be bounded on the West by Sankari Main Road. However, the 1st respondent claimed that she has purchased the entire property abutting Sankari Main Road under the sale deed dated 23.12.2005 referred to supra, prevented the appellants from having access to the property purchased by them under the sale deed dated 26.09.2007. The appellants applied for another certified copy of the sale deed which was furnished on 07.12.2007. To their surprise they found that the description of property in the certified copy dated 07.12.2007 was altered and it read as follows:- brhj;J tpguk; ehkf;fy; hpo. gs;spghisak;

rg;hpo.

gs;spghisak; mf;ucwhuk; fpuhkk;. rh;nt vz; 197-1 be/g[/bcwf;/0/41/5f;F g[/V/1/02\f;F jPh;it U:/1/60/ ,j;jPh;it bgw;w g{kpapy; g[/V/0/25 brz;L tptrha g{kp g{uht[k; fpiuak;/ ,jw;F

brf;Fge;jp

?

r';ffphp nuhl;Lf;Fk; (fpHf;F) vdf;F b$duy; gth; bfhLj;jthpd; tptrha g{kpf;Fk; (nkw;F) ntyg;gd; g{kpf;Fk; (tlf;F) fe;jrhkp. bgh";rhak;khs;. Kdpag;gd; ,th;fs; g{kpf;Fk; tptrha g{kpf;Fk; (bjw;F) ,jd;kj;jpapy; cs;s g[/V/0/25 brz;L tptrha g{kpg{uht[k;/

¶4In the above description the word 'kw;Wk;' appearing between nkw;F and tlf;F was scored off and the word ntyg;gd; g[{kpf;Fk; were inserted. These corrections were numbered as correction Nos.4 and 5 in the certified copy issued on 07.12.2007. Claiming that such correction was unauthorized, the appellants filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11436 of 2008 seeking a prayer for direction to take action against the officials of the 3rd respondent for correction in the sale deed and for a direction to remove the additions shown in the certified copy.

¶5The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court recording the fact that a criminal case in Crime No.46 of 2008 under Sections 120-B, 466, 468, 420 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code have been registered against the four accused persons and it was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode. The second prayer was allowed and the certified copy was directed to be issued. The writ Court while disposing of the writ petition also recorded the fact that there is a report of the enquiry officer which found that subsequent corrections have been made in the document without any authorization and based on the enquiry report a criminal case has been lodged. Thereafter, based on the enquiry report the District Registrar, Namakkal directed the corrections which were interlineated in the original sale deed to be deleted and the same should be made a foot note in the document by his letter dated 08.04.2013. The second paragraph of the said letter reads as follows:- ,e;epiyapy; kDjhuh;fs; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,J Fwpj;J tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;J ghpfhuk; nfl;Lf;bfhz;ldh;/ mjd;go ghh;it 2y; fz;l jPh;g;g[iuapd;go ehkf;fy;

khtl;lk;

gs;spghisak; rhh;gjpthsh;

mYtyfj;jpy;

gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l Mtz vz;/2293-2005y; gjpt[ rkak; mYtyfj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;j mry; Mtzk;

kw;Wk;

efypy;

cs;sgona jw;nghJk; jpUj;jk; bra;ag;gl;l gFjpia ePf;fp mry; efypy; cs;sgo rhd;wpl;l efy; tH';f cj;jutplg;gl;Ls;shh;fs;/

¶6Pursuant to the said letter the following endorsement was made as a foot note in the sale deed dated 23.12.2005: Fwpg;g[

: ? brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w Miz vz;/ W.P.No.11436/2008 ehs; 07/03/2018d; go ehkf;fy; khtl;l gjpthsh; mth;fs; foj vz;/757-M1-2008 ehs; 08/04/2013d; go Mizf;fpz';f fPH;f;fhQqk; Fwpg;g[fs; nrh;f;fg;gLfpwJ/ ",e;jefypy;

fz;Ls;s brhj;Jtptuj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;l thpgpse;J vGjg;gl;l

xU

brf;Fge;jpapd; thrf';fshd "ntyg;gd; g{kpf;Fk; " vd;gJ Foot Note-y; cs;s (4) moj;jy; (5) thpgpsg;g[ vd;gJ ePf;fk; bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ Mtzgjpt[ bra;a[k; rkak; jhf;fy; bra;j nfhh;it bra;ag;gl;l efypy; cs;sthW ,e;j brf;Fge;jpfshd r';ffphp nuhl;ow;Fk; (fpHf;F)

vdf;F

b$duy;

gth; bfhLj;jthpd;

tptrhag{kpf;Fk;

nkw;F kw;Wk; tlf;F fe;jrhkp. bgh";rhak;khs;. Kdpag;gd;

,th;fs;

g{kpf;Fk; tptrhag{kpf;Fk; bjw;F ,jd; kj;jpapy; cs;s g[";ir Vf;fh; 0/25 brs;l; tptrha g{kpg{uht[k; fpuak; " vd;w thrf';fns me;j Mtzj;pw;F bghUe;Jk; vd Fwpg;g[ nrh;f;fg;gLfpwJ/ mg;gk; rhh;gjpthsh; ehs; 12/4/2013/ "

¶7The 1st respondent challenged the said action of insertion of the foot note in W.P.No.29491 of 2013 which came to be allowed by this Court holding that any corrections can be made only after the criminal proceedings are completed. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶8We have heard Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. The 5th respondent is the vendor of the appellants.

¶9Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the fact that the corrections relating to the boundary in description of the property in the sale deed dated 23.12.2005 were inserted subsequently after the registration of the instrument is clearly borne out by the records. The learned counsel would heavily rely upon the certified copy of the said instrument that was issued by the very same office on 06.02.2006 which does not contain the two corrections viz., the scoring off of the word 'kw;Wk; ' and insertion of the words 'ntyg;gd; g[{[kpf;Fk; ' between the words 'nkw;F' and 'tlf;F' in the document. By altering the boundary description of the property, the very location of the property has been changed which could not have been done without the connivance of the officials of the Registration Department.

¶10The registration manual which serves as a guide to the Registrars contains detailed instructions as to how corrections and interlineations should be numbered and certified by the Registrars. The instruction No.878 which deals with notes on interlineations and erasures reads as follows:-

¶878(a) Notes of interlineations, erasures, or alterations in documents or in endorsements thereon shall be so prepared as to show precisely what word or words have been interlined or altered and the places in which erasures or blanks occur. In the majority of cases the simplest plan is to underscore the particular word or words, an to write the letters

(a), (b), (c), (d), etc., above with corresponding foot-notes preceded by the expression "In document, interlineations, etc."

(b) Similar notes shall also be made in regard to interlineations and erasures in the copy of document. The particular word or words interlined or erased shall in the copy, be flanked by brackets and the figures (1), (2), (3), (4), etc., entered above the bracketed portions, corresponding foot-notes being added, preceded by the expression "In copy, interlineations, etc."

(c) When an erasure or an interlineation extends beyond one line, the entire erasure or interlineation shall be denoted by a single figure which shall be repeated on each line over the middle of the erased or interlined portion.

¶11A reading of the above instruction shows that the corrections will have to be numbered in seriatim and that shall be certified at the end of the instrument. We have summoned the original of the Book-I in which the Doc.No.2293/2005 had been filed from the office of the 3rd respondent. We find that the corrections that are attacked as subsequent introduction bear the serial numbers as (4) and (5), they appear in the first page of the instrument. But, subsequent corrections made in the document are numbered as Sl.Nos.(1), (2) and (3) which are in the latter part of the document. This by itself is sufficient to conclude that the corrections which are now attacked have been made subsequently after the registration of the instrument and after the issuance of the certified copy dated 06.02.2006. Similarly while the corrections and interlineations in the document are extracted at the end of the document the said instrument reads as follows:- Mtzj;jpy; thpgpsg;g[ ,y;iy efypy;

(1)(2)(3) (4) moj;jy; (5) thp gpsg;g[/

¶12After the numerals (1), (2) and (3) the words moj;jy; has been scored off to accommodate the subsequent corrections viz., (4) and (5). It is therefore very clear that the words (4) moj;jy; (5) thp gpsg;g[ have been subsequently included and there is significant difference in the handwriting also, only to make it appear that the corrections were made even at the time when the document was registered.

¶13The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be oblivious to such malpractice, particularly in the office of the Registrars, who are supposed to maintain a record of transactions relating to immovable properties, which have become very valuable today. The fact that the additions or corrections have been subsequently incorporated is borne out from the records. To use the tamil saying mit cs;s';if bey;ypf;fzp nghy; bjhpfpwJ/

¶14The original Book-I which has been produced before us demonstrates that these corrections in the boundary recitals have been incorporated subsequently after the issuance of certified copy on

06.02.2006. This conclusion of ours is further strengthened by the notice issued by the 1st respondent through her learned counsel in which the boundary description of the property purchased by her under the sale deed dated 23.12.2005 is shown as follows: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Namakkal R.D., Pallipalayam S.R.D., Pallipalayam Agraharam Village, Patta No.749, S.No.197/1, Punjai Hectare 0.41.5 for this Punjai Acre 1.02-1/2, Asst. Rs.1.60 in this Punjai acre 0.25 within the following boundaries; East of Sankari road, West and North of Muniappan's land, South of the lands of Kandasamy, Ponjayammal and Muniappan. With all easementary rights appended thereto. The property situate within the limits of Pallipalayam Agraharam Panchayat.

¶15The said notice is dated 21.01.2013. It is therefore clear that the correction Nos.4 and 5 in the original sale deed dated 23.12.2005 have been carried out at the instance of some person who wanted to meddle with the property with the active connivance and collaboration of the officials of the Registrar office at Pallipalayam.

¶16It is high time that this Court steps in, to correct such mishaps in a very important branch of the Government viz., the Registration Department. No doubt, a criminal case has been launched. The writ Court need not wait for the conclusion of the criminal case because the standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is completely different and proof beyond doubt sometimes proves elusive. We are therefore convinced that these corrections have been made subsequently and the District Registrar was right in incorporating the note as found in his letter dated 08.04.2013.

¶17Even from the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.11436 of 2008 it is seen that the Inspector General of Registration has directed the District Registrar, Namakkal to initiate criminal proceedings because it was found that the interlineations were introduced subsequently. We are therefore unable to sustain the conclusions of the learned Single Judge that the District Registrar should have waited till the conclusion of the criminal case.

¶18In view of the above conclusion of ours based on the documents that are made available, we have to necessarily intervene with the order of the writ Court and the writ appeal is, therefore, allowed. The endorsement made in the document by the order of the District Registrar dated

08.04.2013 shall remain in the document and they shall not be struck off as directed by the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition in W.P.No.29419 of 2013 will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19We need not be unduly worried about this malpractice, as of today, since the documents presented for registration now are scanned and such manipulations have become almost impossible. (R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) dsa

26.07.2024 Index : No Internet : Yes : No Speaking order To:-

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 004.

2.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Pallipalayam Agraharam Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and

R.SAKTHIVEL, J. dsa

26.07.2024

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.07.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL and C.M.P.No.13644 of 2022 K.K.Rajendran (Died) 1.Tamil Selvi 2.Sasikumar 3.Subha ...Appellants Vs. 1.Arukkani 2.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 004. 3.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Namakkal, Namakkal District. 4.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Pallipalayam Agraharam Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. 5.M.Palaniammal ...Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order in W.P.No.29419 of 2013 dated 15.06.2022. For Appellants : Mr.M.Guruprasad For 1st Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, Additional Government Pleader For 5th Respondent : No appearance *********