JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

The Department is on appeal against the order of the Writ Court where the Writ Court found that the Department cannot launch upon an inquiry under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity “the Act”), regarding the validity of the document which was executed prior to the introduction of Section 77-A of the Act. The jurisdiction to entertain complaints or cancel documents is vested with the Registrar under Section 77-A of the Act. The said Section reads as follows:-

“77-A. Cancellation of registered documents in certain cases.- (1) The Registrar, either suo moto or on a complaint received from any person, is of the opinion, that registration of a document is made in contravention of Section 22-A or Section 22-B, shall issue a notice to the executant and all the parties to the document and parties to subsequent documents, if any, and all other persons who, in the opinion of the Registrar, may be affected by the cancellation of the document, to show cause as to why the registration of the document shall not be cancelled. On consideration of reply, if any received therefor, the Registrar may cancel the registration of the document and cause to enter such cancellation in the relevant books and indexes.”

A reading of the above provision would show that the authorised officer, namely, the Registrar, can launch upon an inquiry only in cases where the documents are hit by or in contravention of Section 22-A or Section 22-B of the Act.

2. Section 22-A of the Act which was introduced with effect from 20.10.2016 deals with documents executed in respect of properties that are owned by the State Government or other religious institutions. It is not in dispute that Section 22-A will not apply to the facts of this case. Section 22-B of the Act reads as follows:-

“[22-B. Refusal to register forged documents and other documents prohibited by law. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register the following documents, namely:-

1. forged document;

2. document relating to transaction, which is prohibited by any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force;

3. document relating to transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift, lease or otherwise, which is attached permanently or provisionally by a competent authority under any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force or any Court or Tribunal;

4. any other document as the State Government may, by notification, specify.]”

A reading of the above section would show that the power of cancellation is vested in the Registrar only in respect of three kinds of documents:-

(a) a forged document;

(b) a transaction which is prohibited by the Central Act or the State Act for the time being in force and;

(c) a document relating to the transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift deed or otherwise which is attached permanently or provisionally by the competent authorities under any Central or State Act for the time being in force or a Tribunal or any other documents which the State Government may specify.

3. A perusal of the representation dated 09.12.2022 which has been made by the petitioner shows that the eighth respondent in the writ petition, who is the second wife of the petitioner's grandfather has claimed title to the property and has sold the property as if it belongs to her. This type of document cannot fall within the definition of a “forged document” under Section 22-B of the Act. In the absence of a complaint of forgery or impersonation, the document will not be in contravention of Section 22-B so as to enable the Registrar to invoke the power under that Section. The power of the Registrar to cancel the document is dependent on a document falling within any of the clauses of Section 22-B. If the document does not fall within Section 22-B or Section 22-A, the Registrar has no power to cancel the same. Section 2(5-A) of the Act provides that the term “forged document”shall have a same meani