Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Thursday, Jan 17, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industry & Economy
-
Real Estate & Construction Money & Banking - Mortgage States - Tamil Nadu Law silent on compulsory registration of mortgage deeds: HC Our Legal Correspondent Chennai, Jan. 16 When a document was presented to a sub-registrar, he registered the same, and there was no provision in the Registration Act, 1908, that in case of cancellation of a registered mortgage, signature of mortgagee also must be subscribed in the document, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held. A borrower by cancelling mortgage document unilaterally could not get out of his liability to make repayments to lender. Dismissing a writ petition by a lender (V.P. Mariappan) challenging the proceedings dated July 2, 2004, of Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, that action taken by Sub-Registrar, Tuticorin, in registering mortgage deed was in terms of law, Mr Justice K. Chandru ruled that provision of law talked about deed of sale of property to be signed by both sides, and there was no reference to any mortgage deed. Word ‘sale’ as stated under Section 34-A of the Act had got a definite connotation, and by no stretch of imagination, it could be expanded to include all types of transactions, including a mortgage for purposes of compulsory registration. The petitioner’s plea that court must indulge in judicial engineering by giving wider definition of word ‘sale’ so as to include mortgage could not be accepted, as Court could not indulge in semantic luxuries. This Court’s power to interpret in the name of judicial review and introduce new texts into a legislation was impermissible. The petitioner submitted that the third respondent (P. Pitchaiperumal) had borrowed money in 1977, and repayments were made by cheques. A cheque was returned by the bank on ground of insufficiency of funds. The issue was taken to court, which found the third respondent guilty. Subsequently, the third respondent came for a compromise and executed a mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner. The said mortgage was registered as a deed in favour of petitioner. Without notice to petitioner, the third respondent cancelled the mortgage deed. The petitioner contended that while registering the document, the sub-registrar ought to have given notice to the petitioner. The judge held there was nothing wrong in the communication sent by IG of Registration to the petitioner. The writ petition was misconceived and would stand dismissed. More Stories on : Real Estate & Construction | Courts/Legal Issues | Mortgage | Tamil Nadu
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|