1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ of Mandamus, praying for issuance of a direction by this Court in directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's complaint dated 12.07.2008 and to take action against the fourth respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, originally the property in Survey Nos.138/4, 138/3, 138/2, 138/5, 139/4, 161/1, 138/6 measuring in all 13 acres 31 cents and in Survey Nos.152/1 and 152/2 measuring an extent of 5 Acres and 60 cents situated at Thiruvalkudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, were purchased by him and his Uncle K. Abdul Wahab jointly from one Ambigapathy, as per two sale deeds dated 03.05.1990 (registered as Document Nos.375 and 376 of 1990 on the file of the District Registrar's Office, Karaikudi).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after purchasing all the properties, the possession and enjoyment of the property right from the date of purchase was in his hands and his Uncle, K. Abdul Wahab. They entered into an agreement to sell the property with one Ayyappan during April, 2007 and when the proposed purchaser applied for Encumbrance Certificate during May 2007, they came to know that some sale transactions took place encumbering their properties.

4. The petitioner and his Uncle filed a complaint before the concerned Police Officials and it was agreed that they would work out the remedies/rights before the Civil Forum. A Civil Suit, O.S.No.20 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Karaikudi, was filed by one Saravanan and the purchaser, Ayyappan, who negotiated with the petitioner to purchase the property, agreed to contest the suit at his own cost.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the sixth respondent, viz., his alleged Power Agent, got a sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent dated 01.06.2007 and his Uncle, who was a joint owner, was not shown as vendor and this showed that the entire transactions were fraudulent one. Also that, the petitioner has changed his signature even as early as 2005. Later, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the sale deed dated 01.06.2007 was registered without a registered Power of Attorney. As per the Registration Act, 1908 only if the Third Respondent/Joint Sub Registrar, Karaikudi, passed an order in regard to the commission of fraud, then only, he can proceed further under the provisions of Registration Act.

6. On 12.07.2007, a representation was addressed by the petitioner to the District Registrar, Registration Department of Karaikudi District, to cancel the fraudulent Document No.1408/2007. In the said complaint, he had stated that the sixth respondent/R. Vadivelsamy, son of M. Ramalingam, had fraudulently created a Power of Attorney on 17.01.1995 as if the petitioner had signed in the document and got attestation from the Notary Public. He further stated that in the absence of his photograph or signature, he posed a query, how the Sub Registrar could register a power document and consequently, prayed for taking immediate action.

7. The petitioner had presented a Cancellation Document on 10.07.2007, wherein he has sought for cancellation of sale deed dated 01.06.2007 and the said Cancellation Deed was not registered by the Registration Authority and as on date, the same is kept pending for registration in Document No.P120/2007.

8. According to the Learned counsel for the petitioner, the authority concerned had conducted an enquiry and they furnished a reply dated 07.12.2007 among other things mentioning that the sample signature of Nazaar (petitioner) was not furnished and that the Nazaar's present signature now differs from that of his signature found in the Joint Power of Attorney. Since the sample/admitted signature of the petitioner, till date, was not furnished by him, no comparison could be made and even then, if the complaint is found true, action can be taken after sending the same to the Police Department. Further, as per High Court