Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
R.Manikandan - Petitioner
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Division – Respondent
WP.No.20281 of 2021 and WMP.No.21533 of 2021
Decided on : 24-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) - Sale Deed - Punishment for forgery – Criminal Conspiracy - Forgery of valuable security, will, etc - Forgery for purpose of cheating - Application for cancellation of patta - Suit in respect of subject property - Petitioner's mother had executed settlement deed in his favour vide document - On strength of the unregistered sale deed, patta was - Thereafter, petitioner executed power of attorney in favuor of one, for applying layout plan approval before the CMDA - Petitioner also executed a gift deed in favour of Corporation of Chennai for formation of roads and other public utilities – On receipt of the impugned notice from first respondent, petitioner went to the Office of the first respondent and informed about the suit filed by him on file of District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur in respect of the subject property - When the court is seized of the matter, normally the revenue authorities should not entertain the petitions for change of patta and the party should be directed to seek their relief in the civil court. (Para 11).
Finding of the Court: First respondent had no knowledge about the death of petitioner's mother and the first respondent issued notice to the petitioner's mother as well as the petitioner and second respondent for enquiry to be held - No doubt, unregistered sale deed can be used for collateral purpose, document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of Registration Act - Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act - A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration - A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest, in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards - If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/419/2020 dated 13.09.2020 (signed on 13.09.2021) passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from proceeding further, in view of the law laid down in Vishwas footwear Co., case [(2011 (5) CTC 94 (DB)]
2. The property comprised in survey Nos.184/1 and 185/1 admeasuring 60 cents situated at Madananthapuram Village, Alandur Taluk, Chennai owned by Nagabhoosnam. She executed unregistered sale deed dated 09.04.1984 in favour of the petitioner's mother. The said Nagabhoosnam died on 10.02.2011. The second respondent is being the son of the said Nagabhoosnam lodged complaint as against the petitioner's mother before the first respondent with regards to the cancellation of patta issue in her favour.
3. Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother had executed settlement deed in his favour on 26.06.2015 vide document No.10259 of 2015. On the strength of the unregistered sale deed, patta was obtained on 13.06.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner executed power of attorney on 16.09.2015 in favuor of one, Kavitha Rani for applying layout plan approval before the CMDA. The petitioner also executed a gift deed on 19.09.2016 in favour of Corporation of Chennai for formation of roads and other public utilities. He further submitted that on receipt of the impugned notice from the first respondent, the petitioner went to the Office of the first respondent on 17.09.2021 and informed about the suit filed by him in OS.No.114 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur in respect of the subject property. When the said suit is very much pending between the petitioner and the second respondent, the first respondent has no power to entertain the complaint lodged by the second respondent for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner. The first respondent cannot decide the title and as such he has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for cancellation of patta.
3.1 He further submitted that on the false complaint lodged by the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, ALGSC-II, Greater Chennai registered FIR in crime No.71 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) IPC as against the petitioner and his mother. FIR is under challenge before this Court in quash petition in Crl.OP.No.1563 of 2021 and this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings and it is pending. In fact, the petitioner also lodged complaint before the Commissioner of Police and before the Inspector of Police, T14 Mangadu Police Station, and both are pending for enquiry. Therefore, when there is a dispute with regards to title, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for cancellation of patta. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
(ii) Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., Vs. The District Collector & others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94
(iii) Syed Dhasthakeer Vs. Navab John reported in 2012 (6) CTC 892
4. Per contra, the second respondent filed counter and Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the subject property was never conveyed to the petitioner's mother by the alleged sale deed dated 09.04.1984. During her lifetime, till her death on 10.02.2011, she was paying kist for the said land under patta No.126. After her lifetime, the second respondent was paying kist for the subject land till the year 2019. The petitioner is a stranger to the property and forged the signature of his mother and fabricated unregistered sale deed as if his mother executed the alleged sale deed in favour of the petitioner's mother. The alleged sale deed was executed on 09.04.1984, wherea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
