Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law.

ORDER :

K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J.

1. This writ petition is filed "to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in registering Document No. 322/2011, dated 14.2.2011, as illegal, without jurisdiction, vitiated by fraud, contrary to the provisions of Section 6-B and 6-D of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and Section 32-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequently set aside the same".

2. Case of the petitioner is that, petitioner's late father Paida Chengalvaraya Reddy, was the original owner of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs. 7.94 cents in Sy. No. 263 of Pannur Village and after his demise, petitioner's name was recorded as pattadar in the record of rights (Patta No. 42) and Pattadar Passbook/title deed was also issued in his favour under the provisions of the Act; the 4th respondent taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner from the village, executed fraudulent sale deed dated 14.2.2011, which was registered as Document No. 322/2011 in favour of the 5th respondent, including the land of the petitioner admeasuring an extent of Acs. 7.94 cents, by appending the petitioner's pattadar pass book and making it part of the said sale deed; in the said sale deed, the 4th respondent also made a false statement that Patta No. 42 and Pattadar Pass Book No. K200943, i.e., subject land was in the name of her father P. Suresh Reddy, though the same stands in the name of the petitioner; the 2nd respondent registered the said document, which relates to the total extent of Acs. 14.95 cents, which includes the petitioner's land without his knowledge and consent; the Sub-Registrar is a party to the said fraud and he also affixed his signature and seal on the pattadar passbook standing in the name of the petitioner; the said action of the Sub-Registrar is contrary to Section 6-B of the Act and Section 52 of the Registration Act; hence the writ petition.

3. After filing the writ petition, the petitioner died, hence petitioners 2 and 3 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 1st petitioner as per the orders of this Court passed in WPMP No. 53623 of 2017, dated 28.12.2017.

4. Counter-affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent stating inter alia that as on the date of registration of the said sale deed, production of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed was not necessary, as exemption has been granted by the Government; only from 8.5.2012, it was made mandatory by Circular Memo dated 8.5.2012 and the provisions of Section 58 of the Registration Act do not authorize the Registering Officer to enquire into the validity of the instrument; instructions were issued vide Memo dated 3.4.2010 directing the Registering Officers to accept the documents presented for registration without insisting pattadar pass books and title deeds until further orders; subject document was registered on 14.2.2011 and as on that date, the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General were in force; this Court in WA No. 972 of 2004 held that the Registering Officer is not under statutory obligation to make any enquiry into the document.

5. Counter-affidavit is also filed by the 4th respondent stating, inter alia, that the subject sale deed was executed by her with the consent of the petitioner and that the petitioner has knowledge about the agreement of sale in favour of the 5th respondent; at the time of registration of the document, it is not compulsory to obtain finger prints and that petitioner could have approached the civil Court seeking cancellation of the document.

6. Counter-affidavit is also filed by the 5th respondent stating inter alia that it has paid substantial consideration for purchase of the subject property; after verification of the revenue records, it was revealed that the said pattadar passbook bearing No. K200943 which relates to the subject land of Acs. 7.95 cents does not stand in the name of the 4th respondent's father as alleged by her and that the owner of the said land is P. Janar