V ARJUNAN Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The failure on the part of the Statutory Authority to follow the Rules of Procedure in the matter of disposal of Appeal made the Petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.11.2010 on the file of the District Registrar, Namakkal. The Third Respondent in the present Writ Petition appointed the Fourth Respondent as his Power Agent on the strength of a Power of Attorney dated 27.9.2010. The Fourth Respondent was authorised to sell certain properties situated in S. No. 487/5 Agraharam Manapalli Village, Mohanur, Namakkal District. The Power of Attorney was registered as Doc. No. 377/2010 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Mohanur on 27.9.2010. The Fourth Respondent on the basis of the said Power of Attorney entered into an agreement with the Petitioner to sell the property on 27.9.2010 itself. The Sale Agreement was registered as Document No. 2288/2010 before the Second Respondent. Pursuant to the said agreement, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- was paid to the Petitioner. The Fourth Respondent thereafter executed a Sale Deed on 22.10.2010. The Petitioner was given the original Power of Attorney dated 27.9.2010, and executed the document so as to enable him to produce the same before the concerned Sub-Registrar for registration. The Sale Deed executed on 22.10.2010 was submitted before the Second Respondent for registration on 25.10.2010. However, the Second Respondent refused to register the document under the pretext that the Power of Attorney granted by the Third Respondent was cancelled on 27.9.2010. The order passed by the Sub-Registrar was challenged by the Petitioner before the District Registrar under Sections 72 & 73 of the Registration Act. The District Registrar, without following the mandatory provisions of Rule 173 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, dismissed the Appeal. This made the Petitioner to challenge the said order primarily on the ground that the mandatory provisions were not followed by the District Registrar before rejecting the statutory Appeal.

(2.) The Third Respondent filed a Counter Affidavit wherein, it was contended that the remedy of the Petitioner is only to file a Suit and not a Writ Petition. According to the Third Respondent, the Power of Attorney has already been cancelled and as such, the Sub-Registrar was fully correct in denying the registration of document. Accordingly, the Third Respondent Defended the proceedings of the Sub-Registrar as well as the District Registrar.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner by placing reliance on Rule 171 of the Registration Rules, submitted that the District Registrar was expected to fix the date of hearing of the Appeal and thereafter to issue notice to the parties. However, the District Registrar failed to follow the Rules and abruptly rejected the Appeal by way of a non-speaking order. According to the learned Counsel, in case, the District Registrar has issued notice to the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and afforded an opportunity to all the parties, the Petitioner would have explained to him that even before the cancellation of Power of Attorney, the document was executed by the Fourth Respondent.