CHENNAI: To resolve the issue of registration officers refusing to register property documents citing encumbrance of attachment orders, the Madras High Court has directed the civil courts to “properly communicate” the judgments relating to dismissal of attachment orders to the registration officers.
A division bench of Justices R Subramaniam and R Sakthivel recently passed the orders on a petition pertaining to a sub-registrar in Namakkal district refusing to register certain property documents. The bench said many sub-registrars are refusing to register non-testamentary instruments – dealing with immovable property – citing attachment orders passed by a civil court, even in instances when the sub-registrars are informed that the suit, in which the order of attachment was passed, has either been disposed of or dismissed.
“This is primarily due to the failure on the part of the staff of the courts to communicate orders raising attachments or disposal of the suits. Rule 11 B of Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as introduced by the Madras High Court, specifically provides that orders granting or raising attachment should be communicated to the registering officer within whose jurisdiction the property, subject matter of the attachment, is situated,” the bench said.
The bench pointed out that the attachment orders continue to remain in the encumbrance certificate because the order of attachment or dismissal of the suit is not communicated to the registration officers. “... we direct the Judicial Officers – manning civil courts raising attachment or ordering dismissal of the suits in which an order of attachment has been granted – to properly communicate to the registering officers without fail,” the bench ordered.
The appeal was filed by N Periyasamy and Nallamal. In 2023, they approached the Paramathi sub-registrar for registering a property document but he refused, citing entry of an attachment order issued in 2003 by Namakkal Sub-Court in the encumbrance certificate. He rejected even after they had produced the decree disposing of the suit as ordered in 2007. Hence, they filed a writ petition, which a single judge dismissed, saying that dismissal of the suit was not communicated to the officer.
The bench directed the officer to register the property within 15 days. Citing section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it said “an alienation of attached property” is “not completely prohibited.”