LI Network
Published on: 20 August 2023 at 16:26 IST
The Madras High Court has ruled that the registration of a criminal case does not constitute a hindrance for the registering authority to proceed with the registration of a document.
The court’s decision came while invalidating a Check Slip issued by the Sub-registrar (third respondent), which the court deemed to be inconsistent with the stipulations of the Registration Act, 1908. Consequently, the Madras High Court directed the third respondent to register the relevant documents.
The court’s ruling stemmed from a case in which a property’s owner was restricted from engaging with the property due to a pending criminal case against him. The property had been attached based on a police letter forwarded to the Registering Authority. In response, the petitioner sought the quashing of the criminal case. After the case was dismissed, the petitioner filed the present petition, asserting that the pendency of the criminal case should not obstruct his ability to deal with the property, except in instances where properties are attached through the appropriate legal channels.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate L. Chandrakumar argued his case, while Advocate C. Jayaprakash represented the respondent.
The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of a property located in Salem District. However, a criminal case had been registered against him, prompting the investigation process. As a result, his property was attached, leading him to seek the court’s intervention.
Upon review, the court observed that the mere initiation of a criminal case or the submission of a letter by the Police Inspector notifying the criminal case should not impede the Registering Authority from registering a document, as long as the document is compliant with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The court clarified that Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908, deal with instances where document registration can be refused, but the Inspector of Police’s letter does not automatically prevent the owner from managing the property.
The court emphasized that the pending criminal case or the Police Inspector’s letter does not serve as valid grounds for denying document registration as per the Registration Act, 1908. Instead, if any action is required to attach the property or restrict its alienation during the pendency of a criminal case, the proper course of action is for the concerned parties to approach a Competent Civil Court of Law. This court can issue orders to either prevent registration or allow it based on established legal grounds.
The Madras High Court concluded that the fourth respondent, who had concerns regarding the property’s disposition, should resort to a Competent Civil Court of Law for appropriate remedies. The court’s decision reiterates the importance of due process and established legal mechanisms when addressing property-related matters, even in the presence of a criminal case.
Madras High Court: Criminal Case Does Not Impede Document Registration
The Madras High Court has ruled that the registration of a criminal case does not constitute a hindrance for the registering authority to proceed with the registration of a document. The court’s decision came while invalidating a Check Slip issued by the Sub-registrar (third respondent), which the court deemed to be inconsistent with the stipulations of the Registration Act, 1908. Consequently, the Madras High Court directed the third respondent to register the relevant documents.
The court’s ruling stemmed from a case in which a property’s owner was restricted from engaging with the property due to a pending criminal case against him. The property had been attached based on a police letter forwarded to the Registering Authority. In response, the petitioner sought the quashing of the criminal case. After the case was dismissed, the petitioner filed the present petition, asserting that the pendency of the criminal case should not obstruct his ability to deal with the property, except in instances where properties are attached through the appropriate legal channels.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate L. Chandrakumar argued his case, while Advocate C. Jayaprakash represented the respondent.
The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of a property located in Salem District. However, a criminal case had been registered against him, prompting the investigation process. As a result, his property was attached, leading him to seek the court’s intervention.
Upon review, the court observed that the mere initiation of a criminal case or the submission of a letter by the Police Inspector notifying the criminal case should not impede the Registering Authority from registering a document, as long as the document is compliant with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The court clarified that Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908, deal with instances where document registration can be refused, but the Inspector of Police’s letter does not automatically prevent the owner from managing the property.
The court emphasized that the pending criminal case or the Police Inspector’s letter does not serve as valid grounds for denying document registration as per the Registration Act, 1908. Instead, if any action is required to attach the property or restrict its alienation during the pendency of a criminal case, the proper course of action is for the concerned parties to approach a Competent Civil Court of Law. This court can issue orders to either prevent registration or allow it based on established legal grounds.
The Madras High Court concluded that the fourth respondent, who had concerns regarding the property’s disposition, should resort to a Competent Civil Court of Law for appropriate remedies. The court’s decision reiterates the importance of due process and established legal mechanisms when addressing property-related matters, even in the presence of a criminal case.