IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
G.Rajasulochana – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
WP.No.29706 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.29099 of 2024
Decided on : 16-04-2024
FRAUD - CANCELLATION OF REGISTERED DOCUMENT - Registration Act, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Contract Act, 1872 - The court discussed the limitations of the Registrar's powers under the Registration Act, emphasizing that the Registrar cannot cancel a registered document based solely on allegations of fraud or forgery without substantive evidence. The court highlighted that the law of registration serves to provide public notice of transactions, and the validity of documents is governed by substantive law, particularly the Transfer of Property Act. The court referenced key provisions, including Sections 17, 18, 22-A, and 22-B of the Registration Act, and the definitions of fraud and forgery under the IPC and Contract Act, concluding that allegations of fraud must be proven in a civil court rather than through administrative action.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to cancel a fraudulent document registered in 2022, claiming ownership of a property based on a will and subsequent settlement deed executed by his father. The petitioner alleged that the property was sold through a forged power of attorney, leading to the writ petition for cancellation of the sale deed and prevention of further registrations until the civil suit was resolved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar lacks the authority to cancel registered documents based on allegations of fraud or forgery without substantive evidence. It emphasized that the role of the Registrar is administrative, and any disputes regarding ownership or fraud must be resolved in civil court, not through administrative orders.
Issues: Whether the Registrar has the power to cancel a registered document based on allegations of fraud or forgery, and the proper legal framework for addressing such allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar's powers under the Registration Act are limited to administrative functions, and without explicit statutory authority to cancel registrations, such actions cannot be taken based solely on complaints. The court reiterated that fraud must be proven in a civil court, and the cancellation of documents cannot be based on mere allegations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the Registrar cannot cancel the registered document without substantive evidence of fraud or forgery, and that such matters must be adjudicated in civil court.
ORDER :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to cancel the fraudulent document registered in Doc.No.4843/2022 dated 08.09.2022 before the Sub Registrar Office, Joint II, Cuddalore on the basis of the representation sent by the petitioner dated 03.10.2022 and forbearing the respondents not to register any document in respect of property situated in Sankaranaidu Street, Sankaranaidu House, Thirupathiripuliyur in T.S.No.126, Ward No.4, Block No.3 of Cuddalore Town and District with a extent of 12,654 sq.ft., tll the disposal of the civil suit.
This writ petition is filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to cancel the fraudulent document registered in Doc.No.4843/2022 dated 08.09.2022 before the Sub Registrar Office, Joint II, Cuddalore on the basis of the representation sent by the petitioner dated 03.10.2022 and forbearing the respondents not to register any document in respect of property situated in Sankaranaidu Street, Sankaranaidu House, Thirupathiripuliyur in T.S.No.126, Ward No.4, Block No.3 of Cuddalore Town and District with a extent of 12,654 sq.ft., till the disposal of the civil suit.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner's father K.P.Gopalakrishna Naidu is the original owner of the subject property had executed a will in favour of his wife, who had executed settlement deed in favour of one of her sons. Subsequently, on the basis of complaint of one Balaj, the District Registrar cancelled the will and settlement deed on 11.06.2012, which was reversed by the first respondent vide order dated 23.08.2018. Further, through a forged General Power of Attorney, the subject property to an extent of 6256 sq.ft., is sold to the respondents 4 to 6. Hence, seeks a direction to cancel the sale deed dated 08.09.2022.
3. It is relevant to note that the object of the law of registration is to provide public notice of the transaction embodied therein. The execution of documents and its validity, the right created or extinguished is governed by the substantive law namely the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 relates to the factum of registration alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77 has held as follows:
4. The practice has been developed in the recent past in Tamil Nadu to entertain the applications given by the so-called affected parties to cancel all the documents under the pretext of either forgery or fradulent transactions. The Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu has brought out Circular No.67 dated 03.11.20211 to deal with the fraudulent registrations through impersonation. The said circular is mainly based on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Yanala Malleshwari v. AnanthulaSayamma, reported in AIR 2007 AP 57. However, the three bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that the power of the Registrar, under the Registration Act, is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. The same is extracted hereunder:
Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd.
Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar
N. Ramayee v Sub- Registrar reported in (2020)6 CTC 697
Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P.
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 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 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 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 Registration Act does not empower registrars to cancel documents, which must instead be challenged in civil court for allegations of fraud.
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.
A vendor cannot unilaterally cancel a registered sale deed as it conflicts with property law principles; disputes must be resolved in civil court.
The Registrar does not possess the authority to cancel registered sale deeds, and such powers cannot be conferred by executive order, as this would infringe upon statutory provisions governing regist....
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.