When presentation itself is unauthorised, such document cannot be registered.

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the punja land measuring about 17 acres in patta No. 5 at Arasiarpatti Village. It is further stated that he sold 5 cents of land in Survey No. 261/01 to one Aanai, through document No. 1011/88 on 2.11.1988. It is stated that the said Survey No. 261/01 measuring about 0.51.0 was deleted from patta No. 5 and separate patta No. 854 was given to Survey No. 261/01. The said Aanai is the 5th respondent in the writ.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent in collusion with 6th respondent executed a power of attorney in favour of 6th respondent which was registered in the Sub-Registrars Office, Kovilpatti on 19.5.2004, and by using the said registered power of attorney, the 6th respondent sold the lands in patta No. 5 belonging to the petitioner and accordingly a sale deed was executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent on 15.6.2004 and the said sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kelarajakula Raman, on 16.6.2004, in document No. 1219/2-004. It is further stated that the 5th and 6th respondents have misrepresented as if the 6th respondent owned and enjoyed the property and the 6th respondent has created the document to sell the land.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the said power of attorney was fraudulently obtained and using the same sale deeds are being executed. The petitioner issued notice to the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents and 5th respondent admitted that he has no right over the land and 5th respondent has replied that his signature in the power of attorney was obtained by the 6th respondent by false representation and he has no knowledge about executing either power of attorney or sale deed. In fact he has not executed any document. Whileso, there is no reply from the 6th and 7th respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that respondents 1 to 4, who are the authorities of the Registration Department, are not taking any action. Hence, a direction may be given. The prayer of the petitioner also includes to issue necessary steps to prosecute the respondents 5 to 7 as provided.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader filed a counter on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. The 4th respondent in his counter stated that as per Section 52 of the Registration Act, it is the duty of the registering Officers to register the document whatever is presented and under Section 52(b). "“A receipt for such document shall be given by the registering officer to the person presenting the same”" and thereby they have been performing the duty by registering the power of attorney, so also the sale deed executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent. It is further stated that under Section 32, the registering authority has to verify the genuineness of the person presenting the documents and since it is a registered power of attorney in favour of 6th respondent, they proceeded with the registration. It is further stated that as the schedule mentioned is shown in the power of attorney and in pursuance of the power of attorney, they have registered the document. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, and learned counsel for 5th and 7th respondents. There is no representation for the 6th respondent.

6. The short point for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled for any direction.

7. Point: In the instant case, the 5th respondent has admitted in the reply notice that he is not the owner of the land which was sold by 6th respondent to the 7th respondent, on the strength of power of attorney executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the 6th respondent. The stand taken by 6th respondent is that the signature is fraudulently obtained from the 5th respondent. Therefore, it is proved that the land was sold by the 6th respondent taking advantage of the