NIRMALA A. JHABAKH Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, UDHAGAMANDALAM ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the communication of the second respondent in letter No.88/2021 dtd. 25/6/2021 and quash the same and further direct the second respondent to receive and register the pending document No.P19/2020 presented on 25/6/2020 in accordance with the Article 45(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the property comprised in old survey No.A-66 and A119-D, Rs. Nos.2424 and 2422 to an extent of 1.11-1/8 acres situated at Coonoor, Nilgiri District was purchased by the registered sale deed dtd. 15/10/1956 vide document No.844 of 1956 by the partnership firm 'S.Narayana Rao and Bros.' represented by its partners, Narayana Rao and his brother Venkataramana Rao. The said Venkataramana Rao died leaving his wife and son to succeed to his estates. The other partner V.Narayana Rao executed Will on 1/4/1974 bequeathing his share in favour of his sons i.e. S.N.R.Babu, S.N.Srinivasan and S.N.Nandakumar. The partnership firm was reconstituted after demise of its original partners on 27/3/1973 by induction of their legal representatives. On 9/12/1976, the legal heirs of the deceased Venkataramana Rao retired from the partnership firm by way of executing a joint agreement. However, there was dispute and the legal heirs of the deceased Narayana Rao filed suit in OS.No.691 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. At the same time, the legal heirs of the Venkataramana Rao also filed suit in OS.No.455 of 1981 for declaration declaring that the joint agreement dtd. 9/7/1976 is null and void. By common judgment and decree dtd. 24/11/1987, dismissed the suit filed by the legal heirs of the said Venkataramana Rao and decreed the suit filed by the legal heirs of the said Narayana Rao. Aggrieved by the same, appeal suit was filed in AS.No.22 of 1988 and the same was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dtd. 28/2/1990. Thereafter, one of the legal heirs of S.N.R.Babu died on 20/6/1997 leaving behind his wife and children to succeed to his estates. By the registered partition deed dtd. 11/12/2009, they divided the properties by metes and bounds and accordingly, the other legal heirs i.e. S.N.Srinivasan and S.N.Nandakumar were allotted 30 cents each in Rs. Nos.2424 and 2222 in TS.No.9 of Ward C in Block No.6 of Coonoor. The legal heirs of S.N.R.Babu were allotted the remaining extent of 30 cents. Thereafter, the wife and daughter of the deceased S.N.R.Babu relinquished their 2/3 undivided share right and executed release deed in favour of another legal heir C.B.Neelanarayanan by the release deed dtd. 14/5/2014 registered vide document No.1014 of 2014.

(3.) Mr.M.Rajasekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a document can be refused for registration only on the grounds specified under Sec. 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 162 of the Registration Rules. The document which was presented for registration does not fall either under the grounds specified under Sec. 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 or in Rule 162 of the Registration Rules. The second respondent also relied upon the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration which direct that title to the property concerned in the document ought to be verified by production of title deeds or patta is clearly contrary to Rule 55 of the Registration Rules. This Court repeatedly held that such circulars in the form of executive orders cannot be issued contrary to the Rules and statutes. The reference made by the second respondent with regards to the deeds of retirement of partners dtd. 2/6/2014 and 29/5/2020 executed by retired partners are without any basis and have not been engrossed with requisite stamp, which violates the expressed prohibition under Rule 55 of the Registration Rules and without any basis. When a partner retires, what he receives is his share in the partnership and not any consideration for transfer of his interest in partnership to the continuing partners and therefore there is no transfer of interest in the partnership assets involved by such retirement. The retirement of partner from the partnership firm is not a transfer of interest within meaning of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act warranting registration. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments: