Findings in summary proceedings under the Registration Act are not conclusive, and parties must establish their title independently in the Civil Court. Civil Courts should expeditiously dispose of interlocutory applications and avoid casual adjournments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 01.07.2022 passed in No.814/U1/2022 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.)

1. The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration in proceedings dated 01.07.2022.

2. The order impugned states that the document registered in favour of the writ petitioner is fraudulent and if at all the petitioner disputes title, he is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court of law. Challenging the said order, the writ petitioner states that lands measuring 9.98 acres in SF.No28/1B situated at Nankalathur Madura, Chitharkadu Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District was owned by the writ petitioner. The said lands including the larger extent of 24.52 acres vested with the Government during the year 1963, which was classified as ''Sarkar Poromboke''. Patta bearing No.782 was granted in favour of the petitioner and he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. The 1st petitioner settled the property in favour of the 2nd petitioner, who is none other than his wife M/s.Pattammal. The 2nd petitioner has availed loan by depositing the title deeds before the Axis Bank and set up a Poultry Farm and was cultivating the said lands. Since the 3rd respondent interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioner, the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit in O.S.No.109/2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantagam for Bare Injunction and the said suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Cheyur and re-numbered as O.S.No.248/2020 and is pending as of now.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the Inspector General of Registration exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating the title disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Declaration of the registered document as a fraudulent one can be done only if the registration is found to be fraudulent. In the present case, the Inspector General of Registration adjudicated the issues, which all are disputed between the parties and thus, the order impugned is perverse and liable to be set aside.

5. It is not in dispute between the parties that the Civil Suit has already been instituted by the writ petitioners and is pending. Therefore, the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration is untenable as it would affect the prospects of the writ petitioner in the Civil suits.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent strenuously raised an objection by stating that the 3rd respondent is the absolute owner of the subject property and the 1st petitioner was a care taker of the property and therefore he had fraudulently dealt with the property belonging to the 3rd respondent. Thus, the 3rd respondent has initiated action and filed a complaint under the Registration Act, who in turn, dealt with the issues within the ambit of the provisions of the Registration Act. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the findings made by the Inspector General of Registration.

7. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent reiterated that the petitioners have systematically committed an act of fraudulence for the purpose of grabbing the subject property belonging to the 3rd respondent, who was working as a General Manager in NLC during the relevant point of time and appointed the 1st petitioner as a care taker to look after his proposition. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

8. In respect of the fraudulent documents, threefold actions are permissible for an aggrieved person. A criminal complaint can be registered against such fraudulent registration. A Civil Suit can be instituted to establish the rights or to cancel the documents. Thirdly, a complaint before the competent authorities under the Registration Act is entertainable for the purpose of cancellin