JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No. 1 to consider the representation dated 24.04.2023 and to cancel the document bearing No. 3613/2009 on the file of the Respondent No.2 under Section 77A of the Registration Act)

This writ petition has been field for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 24.04.2023, wherein, the petitioner has sought for cancellation of the Document bearing Registration No.3613 of 2009 under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. Heard Ms.N.Iswarya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents.

3. In the considered view of this Court, there is already an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.14546 of 2022 etc., dated 27.03.2023, wherein, the Registrars were directed to await for further orders of the Larger Bench and not to take any further action. For proper appreciation, the entire interim order is extracted hereunder:

In all these writ petitions, the common issue which has arisen for consideration is the invocation of the provision under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908, vis-a-vis the non-invocation of such provision by the registering authorities.

2. During the course of arguments, learned counsels had put forth a contention that documents which were executed prior to the introduction of Section 77A of the Registration Act, were also interfered with by the registering authorities. It was complained that such interference constituted direct violation of an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, which judgment shall be referred herein after, who held that the provision is only prospective in nature and not retrospective in nature.

3. To counter that particular argument, learned counsels have also brought to my notice, the opinion of another learned Single Judge of this Court who had held that Section 77A introduced in the Indian Registration Act, 1908 would also apply retrospectively.

4. Thus even on the face of it there seems to be conflict of opinion between two learned Single Judges.

5. It is also imperative that, while resolving that particular conundrum, an authoritative pronouncement is also laid on what actually is a fraudulent document or a forged document. The parameters surrounding that particular aspect will have to be examined. Inorder to clarify that particular aspect, it would only be appropriate that the matters are discussed in detail.

6. Let me take resort to, as a guiding factor, a judgment reported in AIR 1960 Madras 1, Muppudathi Pillai V. Krishnaswami Pillai and others. This was a judgment was rendered by a Hon''ble Full Bench of the Madras High Court. I must point out with some pride that in 2021 (4) SCC 786, Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd., Vs Regency Mahavir Properties, the Supreme Court while dealing with an allied issue, categorized this particular judgment of the Full Bench as an ''instructive'' judgment and later while extracting the relevant portions had referred to the particular portion as a very ''important'' paragraph of the said judgment. It is seen that the ration laid down by the Full Bench will have to be examined in detail to determine as to when a document can be categorized as void or voidable. This is the fundamental premise by which any document which is complained of having been unlawfully registered should be first examined.

7. The other aspect is that the aspect of fraud. In the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 1994 (SC) 853, [S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others it had been categorically stated that the principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of absurdity that it bec