The Circular provided effective procedural guidelines for the Registration Authorities to curb fraudulent transactions and did not overreach the judicial power or that of the police. The court upheld the validity of the Circular and the annulment orders, dismissing the petitions challenging the Circular and ordering inquiries based on the Circular to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the guidelines issued in the Circular without delving into the issues relating to title.

1. In the present Batch of writ petitions, one set of individuals question the correctness and legal validity of Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, in C.No.52338/C1/2011 and the consequential annulment orders passed by the District Registrars concerned on the basis of the said Circular, cancelling the registered documents, while others seek for ordering an enquiry based upon the Circular relating to the alleged fraudulent registrations complained by them with the Registration Department through representations.

2. Since all these matters revolve around Circular No.67, dated 03/11/2011, they have been heard together and now, disposed of by this Common Order.

3. Though arguments have been advanced by different learned counsels for the petitioners both against and in favour of the circular in question, at the first instance, it is desirable to deal with the submissions assailing the impugned Circular and, in that perspective, the case and cause projected by Mr. V. Singan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.5908 of 2012 are projected below.

The petitioner in the above Writ Petition by name Ramasamy, who executed a sale deed on 06.05.2011 in favour of one Malar, W/o.Kandasamy and a resident of Kalappakadu Village, Aranthangi Town and Taluk, Pudukottai District, on the basis of a power document executed in his favour by one Kaliaperumal on 03.05.2011, has suffered annulment of the said registered document dated 06.05.2011 as per order No.7048/A1/2011, dated 17.04.2012, passed by the District Registrar, Pudukottai, after recording a finding that the said document has been executed by playing fraud and that all the supporting documents in the nature of power, preceding the document of sale, are also tainted.

In this background, further highlighting certain other core facts, Mr. V. Singan would add that Respondent No.5/C.N.Mathava Rao of Nanganallur claimed a rival title to the property, covered by the above sale deed that was executed in favour of Malar, on the basis of an unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by the previous owner-Pramila in his favour on 22.02.2007. In this regard, a Civil Suit in O.S. No.118 of 2011 is also pending on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai. The fact remains that the alleged Will based on which R-5 claims title to the property is an unregistered will and further, the Will was not probated as contemplated under Section 141 of the Indian Succession Act and hence, it cannot be admitted at all in evidence. The said Will being a forged document, on account of the rival claim over the suit property between the petitioner and R-5, the former filed Crl.O.P. No.10227 of 2011 impleading the latter as a party and obtained an order that the police should not unnecessarily harass him. In addition thereto, the purchaser of the property-Malar also obtained an order in Crl.O.P. No.6961 of 2011 on the file of this Court, directing the police at Pudukottai to register the complaint that was lodged by her seeking investigation. Besides, Malar also filed W.P.(MD) No.7655 of 2011 on the file of this Court and the police, after investigation, found that there is rivalry and dispute between the parties relating to the property involved in the sale, whereupon, this Court disposed of the writ petition after recording the statement of the police that the enquiry relating to the complaint given by R-5 was dropped in view of the civil dispute between the parties. While so, due to pressure, the police attached to the Land Grabbing Prevention Cell at Pudukottai registered a complaint in Crime No.4 of 2012 against the petitioner and others. Consequently, the petitioner and two others were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and later, they have been released on bail under the orders of the District Court, Pudukkottai, and rest of the persons against whom FIR was filed have obtained anticipatory bail from this Court by orders passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2977 of 2012. The persons agains