The Registration Act does not empower registrars to cancel documents, which must instead be challenged in civil court for allegations of fraud.

JUDGMENT :
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This writ appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.12.2018 dismissing W.P(MD)No.9633 of 2018.

2. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the learned Single Judge.

2.1. The writ petitioner had invited an adverse order from the District Registrar on an application made by him for cancellation of certain registered documents. The writ petition was filed challenging the said order.

2.2. The learned Single Judge had held that the writ petitioner had established the cause of action but proceeded to hold that he might not be entitled to the remedy in law.

2.3. The facts that lead up to the filing of the writ petition may be summarized and this Court hastened to add a cautioning statement that it shocks and chills the conscience of this Court.

● The writ petitioner certain Rathnam had purchased a block of 3.31 acres in several survey numbers under several sale deeds, all which, lie contiguously between 1982 and 2000. Sale deeds were obtained inter alia in the names of certain Vahitha Devi and Krishnaveni, the daughters of the petitioner.

● According to the petitioner, this block of 3.31 acres was enclosed by a compound wall along with its boundaries wherein he had put up Hallow Brick Manufacturing Unit plus quarters for the employees of the Unit and two bungalows besides other constructions.

● The properties which the petitioner had earlier purchased in the name of his daughter Vahitha Devi was comprised in Survey No.1000/4B and the property purchased in the name of Krishna Veni was comprised in Survey No.1000/1B (Part) of Kulavanigapuram village. These properties were correlated to T.S.Nos.140 and 141. While so on 21.05.2010, both the daughters of the petitioner had executed separate settlement deeds in favour of the petitioner as regards part of the property that were purchased in their respective names. While Vahitha Devi had settled the entire property that was purchased in her name, Krishnaveni had settled
29.5 cents in favour of the petitioner. Part of the constructions referred to earlier is also situated in the property covered by the settlement deeds of Vahitha Devi and Krishnaveni.

2.4 The life was peaceful to the octogenarian petitioner till 14.12.2015 and that was the date when a bunch of hooligans engaged in a conspiracy to abuse the judicial process of the Court. These facts are now unfold.

● Certain Mohanan instituted a suit in O.S.No.126 of 2015 before the Additional District Court, Tirunelveli for partition against one Jeyalakshmi, who is the third respondent herein, for partition of two items of properties comprised in in Survey No.1000/D, 1000/4 and 1000/1B. On 17.12.2015, the suit was numbered. On 28.01.2016, the third respondent entered appearance and filed a settlement agreeing for partition. The matter then stood over to 11.02.2016 and a memo came to be filed before the District Court based on which, the learned District Judge passed a decree for partition. A decree came to be passed and surprisingly it was not a partition decree for