S. Tamilvanan, J.
Both the writ appeals have been preferred by Tamil Nadu Chess Association, Theni against the common order, dated 29.10.2003 passed by the
learned Single Judge. For convenience, the parties to both appeals are referred to, as arrayed in W.A. No. 3728 of 2004.
2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 29.10.2003, passed in W.P. No. 32077 of 2002, the appellant herein has preferred W.A. No. 3728 of 2004.
The said writ petition had been filed by the fourth respondent herein, whereby sought an order of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records
of the respondents, culminated in Order No. 24391/II/2002, dated 01.07.2002 of the first respondent and quash the same and to cancel the
registration made in PKM-81 of 2002, dated 29.04.2002 by the third respondent in favour of the appellant herein to have the Association
registered under the similar name ""Tamil Nadu Chess Association"", which the petitioner had already registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No. 7235 of 2003, W.A. No. 4083 of 2003 has been filed. In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant
herein sought a direction in the nature of writ, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the order of registration issued by the second
respondent in his Proceedings No. 124 of 2002, dated 21.03.2002 in favour of the fourth respondent in the name of Tamil Nadu Chess
Association, Chennai, as illegal, null and void and also to direct the second respondent to cancel the said registration.
4. In both the appeals, the appellant is Tamil Nadu Chess Association, Reg. No. 81 of 2002, No. 110, Kottai Kalam Street, Allinagaram, Theni.
The second respondent in W.A. No. 4083 of 2003 and the fourth respondent in W.A. No. 3728 of 2004 is Tamil Nadu Chess Association, Hall
No. 75, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Chennai-3. The first respondent in W.A. No. 3728 of 2004 is the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.
The other respondents are The District Registrars of Societies, Chennai and Theni.
5. Tamil Nadu Chess Association, Chennai - 3, the fourth respondent herein, as petitioner in W.P. No. 32077 of 2002 has questioned the order of
the first respondent, dated 01.07.2002, wherein he has stated that he had applied for registration of the Association in the name of Tamil Nadu
Chess Association to the Registrar of Societies, Central Chennai on 13.02.2002 and after considering the application, the same was registered in
Reg. No. 134 of 2002 by order, dated 21.03.2002 by the second respondent. The appellant, having office at Theni also got registered on
29.04.2002 in the same name as Tamil Nadu Chess Association, Theni, in Registration No. 81 of 2002, with the District Registrar of Theni, much
after the registration of the fourth respondent''s Association. Hence, the petitioner made a request to the first respondent for cancellation of the
registration in favour of the fourth respondent, in view of Section 9(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act (herein after referred to as
Act) and the same was not considered.
6. It is not in dispute that as per Section 9(1)(c) of the Act, no society shall be registered by a name, which in the opinion of the Registrar is
identical or so nearly resembles with the name by which, another society was already registered and is in existence.
7. The appellant herein had applied for registration of its Association at Periyakulam, Theni District on 23.01.2002 for registering the society in the
name of Tamil Nadu Chess Association. However, the said request was rejected on 07.02.2002 by the third respondent, on the ground that the
appellant had used the name ""Tamil Nadu"", which was not permissible u/s 9(2) of the Act Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal
before the first respondent, Inspector General of Registration, on 26.02.2002 and the Inspector General of Registration, by his order, dated
22.04.2002, directed the District Registrar, Theni to register the association of the appellant, accordingly, the appellant''s association was
registered on 29.04.2002, which is not in dispute.
8. The fourth respondent herein, Tamil Nadu Chess Association, Chennai-3 had applied for registration of its society in the name of Tamil Nadu
Chess Association on 13.02.2002 and after considering the application, the fourth respondent society was registered in the name of Tamil Nadu
Chess Association in Registration No. 124/02 by the order of the second respondent, dated 21.03.2002, which is also not in dispute.
9. As contended by Mr. Sivam Sivanandaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in W.A. No. 3728 of 2004, the fourth
respondent association was admittedly registered by the second respondent on 21.03.2002, prior to the date of the registration of the appellant''s
association by the third respondent on 29.04.2002.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the appellant''s association was registered on 29.04.2002, the application
for such registration had been submitted before the third respondent, District Registrar, Theni, on 23.01.2002 itself, prior to 13.02.2002, the date
on which the fourth respondent had submitted his application before the second respondent at Chennai, and therefore, according to the learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant, as per Sub-section 2 of Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, the order of the appellate authority shall
relate back to the date when the application was presented by the appellant for registration and if that provision is adopted, the date of registration
of the appellant''s society on 29.04.2002 shall relate back to the date of the application, namely 23.02.2002 and in that event, the appellant shall
be considered as the association registered prior to the registration of the fourth respondent herein. It was further contended by the learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant that as per Section 3 and 4 of the Indian Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper use) Act, 1950, no
registration could be made in the name of Central Government or State Government without prior permission of an Officer of either the State or
Central Government as authorised in this behalf by the Act. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent has not specifically obtained such
permission from the Inspector General of Registration, the first respondent herein.
11. In the case of the appellant, the application, dated 23.01.2002 filed by the association was rejected by the third respondent, District Registrar,
Theni, by his order dated 07.02.2002, on the ground that the association could not use the name ""Tamil Nadu"" saying that it was not permissible
u/s 9(2) of the Act and therefore, the aforesaid appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Inspector General of Registration, the first
respondent herein on 26.02.2002. The first respondent, by order dated 22.04.2002 directed the District Registrar, Theni to register the
association of the appellant and accordingly, the society of the appellant was registered on 29.04.2002. In so far as the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the appellant with reference to Section 3 and 4 of the Indian Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper use) Act, 1950, as
held by the learned single Judge, it is only a restriction in using the emblems or seals or the names of the State or Central Government in
consonance with any trade activity and as such, the said provisions cannot be considered as a restriction imposed on an association involving in
sports activities.
12. It is an admitted fact that the appellant-society itself was registered only in the name of Tamil Nadu Chess Association, having registered their
society in the name of Tamil Nadu Chess Association, it is not open to the appellant herein to contend that the fourth respondent could not have
registered its association in the name ""Tamil Nadu Chess Association"". Therefore, the objections raised by the appellant in view of Section 3 and 4
of Indian Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper use) Act, 1950 is not legally sustainable.
13. In the writ appeals, it has been admitted that the fourth respondent association was registered by the second respondent in the name of Tamil
Nadu Chess Association on 21.03.2002, where as the appellant''s association was registered by the District Registrar of Societies, Theni, the third
respondent herein, only on 29.04.2002, subsequent to the date of registration of the fourth respondent Association.
14. In order to substantiate the legal aspects, following decisions were relied on:
1. Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Ramasami Naicker and Others,
2. Ibrahim Chittubhai Vs. A.G. Pancholi,
3. V.M. Rao Vs. Parameswari Ammal and Others,
4. Shri Kuldip Singh Vs. Smt. Balwant Kaur (deceased) represented by her L.R. (i) Smt. Surinder Kaur and others,
5. Gurbax Singh Vs. Kartar Singh and Others,
15. In Gurbax Singh Vs. Kartar Singh and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is well settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect
from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their
execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the
other executed subsequently....
In the aforesaid case, respondent No. 2 therein had executed two documents of sale. As per the finding of the courts below therein, one was
executed by the same vendor, earlier then the other document, though the subsequent document was registered, prior to the earlier document.
After the execution of the sale deed, the purchaser gets the right, after the legal formality of the registration from the date of its execution. Learned
Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that merely submitting an application before the District Registrar, Theni, the third
respondent, will not create any right against the other person, who had already registered his society by the District Registrar, Central Chennai, the
second respondent herein and therefore, the aforesaid facts and circumstances are not applicable for the instant case.
15.1 In the decision, V.M. Rao Vs. Parameswari Ammal and Others, , the Division Bench of this Court held in a case, wherein mortgage of
property of minor was executed on 17.07.1967 and registered on 19.07.1967, though permission of the Court was obtained only on 19.07.1969.
As per Section 47 of the Registration Act (16 of 1908), it was held by this Court that the mortgage was executed without obtaining prior
permission and thus, the same was not covered by the permission.
15.2 In the decision Ibrahim Chittubhai Vs. A.G. Pancholi, , it has been held u/s 47 of Registration Act 1908 that according to Transfer of
Property Act, transfer is effective from the date of instrument of transfer and not from the date of registration.
16. In the aforesaid cases, registration was only a legal formality for the transaction already taken place between the parties and therefore, the
rights of the parties have been decided on the date of execution of the documents, after the legal formality is over. In the instant case, merely
submitting an application for registration will not create any right on the appellant to claim any right against the fourth respondent, who has got
registration of his society, prior to the date of registration of the aforesaid applicant.
17. In view of Section 9(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, no society shall be registered by a name, which is identical or so
nearly resembles with the name, by which another society was previously registered and is in existence. Merely because the appeal preferred by
the appellant against the order of the third respondent, dated 07.02.2002 was allowed by the first respondent and the appellant got the-society
registered on 29.04.2002, the appellant cannot claim its registration with retrospective effect from the date of application, which submitted on
23.01.2002 before the District Registrar, Periyakulam, Theni. Admittedly, the fourth respondent society has got its association registered on
21.03.2002 itself, though the society had submitted Ms application on 13.02.2002 before the second respondent, District Registrar of Societies,
Central Chennai. It is also an admitted fact that the fourth respondent is no way responsible for the rejection of its application on 07.02.2002 and
getting registration on 29.04.2002 by the District Registrar of Societies, Theni, the third respondent herein.
18. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as per Sub-section 2 of Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908, the order of the appellant
authority shall not relate back the registration made on 29.04.2002 to the date when the applicant had presented his application for registration,
detrimental to the interest of the other society namely, the fourth respondent herein, which already got its registration in the name of Tamil Nadu
Chess Association by the second respondent,
19. On the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the appellant association was registered in the same name of Tamil Nadu Chess Association by
the third respondent only on 29.04.2002, subsequent to the registration of the fourth respondent association by the second respondent. In view of
the fact that the registration of the fourth respondent association had taken place on 21.03.2002, prior to the registration of the appellant''s
Association, we could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order, so as to warrant any interference in the appeals.
20. In the result, both the writ appeals in W.A. No. 4083 of 2003 and 3728 of 2004 fail and accordingly, the same are dismissed. However, there
is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.P. No. 7043 of 2004 is also dismissed.
