The obligations arising from acts done by a power agent cannot be affected by the termination of the power deed, and the registration of documents under the Transfer of Property Act serves as notice to the public.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1454/Tha.Pi/2021, dated 07.12.2021 which signed on 10.12.2021 and served to the petitioner on 05.01.2022 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the third respondent to restore all their records to the original position as it was before passing the impugned order of the first respondent.)

1. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The petition mentioned property belonged to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent executed a power of attorney dated 25.08.2008 in favour of the fifth respondent namely R.Poolithurai Talaivanar. It was also registered as Document No.402/2008 on the file of the third respondent. The said document empowered the fifth respondent to deal with the property. The fifth respondent entered into a sale agreement dated 30.01.2009, when the petitioner agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The sale agreement was registered as Document No.300/2009 on the file of the third respondent. The sale agreement reads that the fifth respondent received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance amount. The balance amount was to be paid within a period of one year. The sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 14.10.2009. Based on the same, the revenue records were also duly mutated. While so, on 06.01.2020, the fourth respondent submitted a petition before the District Registrar (Admin), Tenkasi, for cancelling the sale deed dated 30.10.2009 standing in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the authority of the executant had been cancelled on 06.10.2009 itself. The District Registrar (Admin), Tenkasi conducted an enquiry and vide order dated 18.03.2020 relegated him to move the jurisdictional civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tirunelveli. The appellate authority by the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 sustained the stand of the fourth respondent and declared that Document No.3575/2009 is a fraudulent document. The registering authority was directed to make necessary endorsement in the encumbrance register and restrained him from registering any further document based thereon. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and restore the order passed by the original authority.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent strongly contended that the writ petition is bereft of any merits. He took me through the averments set out in the counter affidavit and also the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers. He primarily contended that the document in question rests on the power deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent. The power deed was admittedly cancelled on 06.10.2009. The sale deed was registered only on 14.10.2009. Obviously, such a sale deed is a fraudulent document. He also contended that the case projected by the writ petitioner stood improbabilized by the document enclosed at Page Nos.42 to 44 of the petitioner's typed set of papers. The said document is a deed of undertaking said to have been executed by the fourth respondent and which was in favour of the writ petitioner. In the said document, signatures attributed to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent are found. The said document reads that only on 04.12.2009, the fourth respondent had received