IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
V.S. Rajathilagam – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General, Department of Registration, Chennai & Others – Respondents
WP. No. 22962 of 2023
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Writ Petition - Sale Deed Cancellation - Registration Act, 1908, Section 77-A, Section 22B - The court discussed the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, specifically Section 77-A and Section 22B, and their retrospective application. The court highlighted the limitations on the powers of the District Registrar to cancel documents registered prior to the amendment and emphasized the need for adjudication of civil disputes by the Competent Civil Court of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking the cancellation of a Sale Deed dated 05.08.1985, but the court found the relief sought to be misconceived as the petitioner sought direction to cancel a Sale Deed from 1985 based on a representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the power to cancel a document under the Registration Act, 1908, is limited and that the parties should seek remedies before the Competent Civil Court of law.
Issues: Misconceived relief sought in the writ petition, limitations on the powers of the District Registrar, need for adjudication of civil disputes by the Competent Civil Court of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to cancel a document under the Registration Act, 1908, is limited, and the Competent Civil Court of law should adjudicate civil disputes.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs, and the parties are at liberty to seek remedies before the Competent Civil Court of law.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the Sale Deed dated 05.08.1985 standing in the names of the respondents 4 to 7 registered as document No.3080 of 1985 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Sembiam, based on the petitioner''s representation dated 06.05.2023.)
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the Sale Deed dated 05.08.1985 standing in the names of the respondents 4 to 7 registered as document No.3080 of 1985 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Sembiam, based on the petitioner''s representation dated 06.05.2023.
2. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition is misconceived, since the petitioner seeks direction to cancel the Sale Deed of the year 1985.
3. Merely based on the representation submitted by the petitioner, a Sale Deed registered otherwise under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be cancelled by submitting a representation.
4. By virtue of an amendment under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908, a document registered fraudulently or by impersonation may be cancelled by conducting summary proceedings by the District Registrar.
5. There is no express provision conferring powers on the District Registrar to cancel the documents, which were registered prior to the amendment.
6. The retrospective application of Section 77-A of the Registration Act, has not been explicitly provided. Thus the power, which is not conferred, cannot be impliedly exercised by the District Registrar for the purpose of cancelling the documents, which were registered prior to the amendment and insertion of Section 77-A of the Act.
7. The issues raised in the present writ petition is no more res integra and it was considered by this Court in WP No.19239 of 2022 dated 25.07.2023, wherein in paragraph-13, this Court observed as under:-
“13. Yet another apprehension is that the District Registrars are not empowered to adjudicate the disputed facts. Under Section 77A of the Act, they are empowered to conduct summary proceedings and to identify fraud or impersonation with reference to the provisions of the Registration Act, more specifically, the procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules. In the event of allowing the District Registrars to adjudicate the documents registered prior to the amendment, necessarily, they will have to adjudicate the disputed facts and the background of the title and otherwise, which cannot be done. More so, fraud was not defined prior to the insertion of Sections 22A, 22B and 77A of the Act. This Court, in the case of M.Revathy vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others passed in WP No.16999 of 2023, dated 08.06.2023, had dealt with this issue and held as follows:-
“5. The powers conferred to the District Registrar to cancel the document under the grounds of fraud or impersonation cannot be expanded by adjudicating the title, ownership or disputed issues between the parties. The District Registrars are empowered to conduct summary proceedings and if the allegations i.e. fraud or impersonation are apparent on the face of the record, then alone the documents registered are to be cancelled but not otherwise. Therefore, the District Registrars cannot conduct a trial natured proceedings by adjudicating the title deeds or other documents produced by the respective parties. Only if prima facie case has been established for cancellation on the ground of fraud or impersonation, then alone the District Registrar has to pass orders for cancellation of document.
.... .... ..... .....
7. It is relevant to consider Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enumerates -Particulars to be given where necessary- ~ ?In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful
The power to cancel a document under the Registration Act, 1908, is limited, and civil disputes should be adjudicated by the Competent Civil Court of law.
The powers of the District Registrar under the Registration Act are limited to summary proceedings and cannot replace the adjudication by the Civil Court of Law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the powers of the District Registrar and the need for adjudication of civil disputes by the Competent Civil Court of Law.
The District Registrar lacks authority to nullify registered documents under the Registration Act, with such powers vested only in civil courts.
The power to declare a registered document as fraudulently registered deeds lies with the Civil Court and not the registering authority.
The main legal point established is that the power to cancel registered documents under Section 77A of the Registration Act is limited to cases of fraud or impersonation within specific provisions of....
The Registrar of documents does not possess the authority to cancel registrations based on allegations of fraud or forgery without substantive evidence, and such matters must be resolved through civi....
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 part....
The fraudulent registration of Sale Deeds under the Registration Act, 1908 and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to establish property title.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.