O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1453/Aa4/2020 dated 18.08.2021 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to take action based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 03.06.2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent through a sale deed dated 08.06.2015 registered as Document No.2157 of

2015 on the file of the second respondent, executed a fraudulent deed in favour of the fifth respondent and conveyed the subject property. According to the petitioner, the third respondent originally claimed that he is entitled for five cents of land in T.S.No.24 and he attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. A suit was filed in O.S.No.329 of 1995 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur. This suit was filed by the petitioner and five others seeking for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. In that suit, one of the issue that was dealt with by the Court was as to whether the third respondent herein has any right over five cents of land which he was claiming to be the owner. While deciding this issue, the Civil Court categorically held that the third respondent herein does not have any right over five cents of land and he was not even in possession and enjoyment of the same. Ultimately, the suit filed by the petitioner and others was dismissed and it was confirmed up to this Court in the Second Appeal.

4. In spite of the adverse finding given against the third respondent, he proceeded further to execute a sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent dated 20.12.2007 and in turn, the fourth respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent on 08.06.2015 and according to the petitioner, all these documents are fraudulent documents.

5. The petitioner states that the third respondent in spite of suffering an adverse finding before a competent Civil Court, proceeded to deal with those five cents of land and hence, the petitioner gave a complaint before the first respondent to take action against the private respondents. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No. 14075 of 2020 before this Court. This Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 09.10.2020 and the relevant portion in the order is extracted hereunder:

“4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

“The first respondent is directed to consider the Complaint of the petitioner dated 03.06.2020 and pass orders in accordance with law, particularly, by taking note of Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, and thereafter, the concerned authority may invoke Section 83 of the said Act. The said exercise shall be done within a period of four moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

6. Pursuant to the above order, the enquiry was conducted by the first respondent and the first respondent through the impugned order dated 18.08.2021, rejected the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as against the adverse finding rendered against the third respondent, no appeal was filed by him and the finding has become final. In spite of the same, the third respondent has proceeded to deal with the property and created a document which is fraudulent. As a consequence, further sale deed that was executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent must also be construed as fraudulent. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the tenability of this document must be seen in the light of the finding that was rendered by the competent Civil

Court and that the petitioner is certainly entitled to question the same.

8. The learned Senior Counsel furth