The District Registrar can cancel a document under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908, only in cases of fraud and impersonation apparent on the face of the record. Civil disputes between parties should be adjudicated by the competent civil court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2873/A7/2022 dated 13.02.2023 quash the same and further direct the respondents from interfering with petitioner''s property as per Document Nos.4088/2011 and 4555/2016 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tiruchengode.)

1. The enquiry notice issued by the first respondent-District Registrar in proceedings dated 13.02.2023, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that his father executed Settlement Deed on 09.04.2010 and there was an error in the said document. The said Settlement Deed was cancelled vide document No.4087 of 2011 and on the very same day, the father of the petitioner executed another Settlement Deed in respect of the subject property with correct details vide document No.4088 of 2011.

3. Pursuant to the said Settlement Deed, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

4. The second respondent filed civil suit in OS No.135 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court,Tiruchengode for partition and for injunction. A preliminary decree was passed allotting shares both to the petitioner and to the second respondent and final decree proceedings are pending. While-so, the preliminary decree was dismissed by way of an Appeal Suit in AS No.20 of 2020, which has been transferred subsequently to the Special Court i.e., Additional District Court at Tiruchengode and is still pending.

5. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner submitted complaint under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908, to cancel the document on the ground that it was executed fraudulently.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the second respondent earlier filed complaint to cancel the document before the Competent Authority and the said complaint was disposed of by the Authority in issuing orders dated 04.01.2021 and accordingly, the second respondent was asked to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of resolving the issues.

7. When the District Registrar passed an order on 04.01.2021 relegating the parties to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law and subsequent complaint now filed by the second respondent based on which the impugned enquiry notice was issued, is untenable and to be set aside.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent clarified by stating that the earlier complaint was filed by the second respondent prior to the amendment inserted by way of Section 77-A in the Registration Act, 1908. The order of the District Registrar also prior to the amendment and prior to the amendment, the District Registrar had no power to cancel the registered document. Under those circumstances, the District Registrar passed an order on 04.01.2021 relegating the parties to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law.

9. However, after the amendment and insertion of Section 77-A in the Registration Act, 1908, the petitioner has given a fresh complaint and the said complaint was entertained and a notice was issued asking the petitioner to submit his explanations/objections for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. Thus there is no infirmity in respect of the impugned notice issued to the writ petitioner.

10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, prior to the amendment, the District Registrar had not vested with the power to cancel the document. The Circular No.67 issued by the Government has also been withdrawn.

11. However, after insertion of Section 77-A in the Registration Act, 1908, the power to cancel the document on the ground of fraud and impersonation have been conferred on the Authorities. Fraud and impersonation apparent on the face of the record alone must be interfered with by the Authorities and the Authorities Competent are incompetent to decide the