JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.17118/E2/2021 dated 11.03.2022 and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceeding Na.Ka.No.1392/B1/2022 dated 13.10.2022 and quash the same.

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal dated 17.11.2022 preferred as against the patta dated 13.11.2022 granted by the 5th respondent in favour of the 12th respondent within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.)

1.The writ petition in W.P.No.29310 2022 has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent / the District Registrar and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent / the Deputy Inspector General of Registration in the proceedings dated 13.10.2022 and the writ petition in W.P.No.31805 of 2022 has been filed to dispose of the statutory appeal dated 17.11.2022

2. The petitioner states that originally the properties in Survey No.403, 404 and 405 in plot nos. 338, 339 and 371 to an extent of 52,800 sq.ft (22 grounds) and other properties totalling to 113 acres situtated at Pannayur, Sholinganallur Revenue Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District was owned by one Chokkalinga Mudaliyar. On 10.11.1966 irrevocable Power of Attorney in Document No.650 of 1966 had been executed in favour of one Mr. P.Ganesan, S/o. Perumal Pillai, who was the proprietor of Modern Builders.

3. The petitioner state that the vacant house site situated at Sholinganallur Village, Chennai District within the limits of Greater Chennai Corporation bearing plot nos. 338, 339 and 371 situated in seashore town, to an extent of 52,800 sq.ft (22 grounds) had been purchased by Mr.Perumalsamy Naidu, S/o Samykannu by way of sale deed dated 21.12.1966 registered as Document No.4279 of 1966 on the file of the SRO, Saidapet from Mr.P.Ganesan. The said Mr. Perumalsamy Naidu died in intestate on 21.06.1973 leaving behind his wife Tmt.P.Yedasammal and his son P.Raguraman and as his legal heirs. After the demise of Perumalsamy Naidu, patta was obtained in respect of the said land in the name of respondents 10 and 11 jointly through Patta Nos.9978 and 9989 issued by Sholinganallur Tasildar Office.

4. The dispute arouse between the parties in view of the fact that the same property has been registered by two different persons with the same document number. In other words, Document No.4279 of 1966 was allotted in respect of two distinct sale deeds, which created dispute between the parties.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the subject property described in the writ proceedings. The petitioner is the holder of the original title deeds purchased by paying the sale consideration.

6. That being the factum, the other documents registered under the same document number is forged one and therefore, an action is to be taken in respect of the documents possessed by the contesting respondents.

7. In view of the fact that two documents under the same document number existed, the 4th respondent in the present writ petition filed a complaint before the District Registrar to declare the document owned by the petitioner as fraudulent under Section 77-A of the Registration Act. The District Registrar, South Chennai conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to all the parties. The findings of the order passed by the District Registrar, South Chennai reveals that there are certain discrepancies in respect of the document produced by the contesting petitioner and the respondents and accordingly arrived at a conclusion that the document possessed by the 4th respondent is genuine and consequently held that the documents in p