J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

The intra Court appeal on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated 11.10.2023 in W.P.No.28358 of 2023. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us, who instituted a writ of mandamus directing the District Registrar, Namakkal to conduct an enquiry based on the representation submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant on 15.05.2023, to cancel the Document No.7916 of 2022, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.

2. Since, the writ petition was dismissed on technicalities, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

3. We have perused a copy of the representation submitted by the writ petitioner to the District Registrar dated 15.05.2023. The appellant states that a fraudulent document was registered vide Document No.7916 of 2022 dated 06.12.2022 on the file of the 3rd respondent. Thus, the appellant has filed a complaint under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, to cancel the document registered in a fraudulent manner.

4. Section 77-A was inserted by T.N.Act 41 of 2022 with effect from 16.08.2022. Section 77-A confers power on the District Registrar to cancel the registered document in certain cases. Sub-Section (1) stipulates that the Registrar, either suo motu or on a complaint received from any person is of the opinion that the registration of document is made in contravention of Section 22-A or Section 22-B shall issue a notice to the executant and all the parties to the document and parties to subsequent documents, if any, and all other persons who, in the opinion of the Registrar, may be affected by the cancellation of the document, to show cause as to why the registration of the document shall not be cancelled. On consideration of reply, if any received therefore, the Registrar may cancel the registration of the document and cause to enter such cancellation in the relevant books and indexes.

5. An appeal has been contemplated under Section 77-B of the Registration Act and an aggrieved person from and out of the order, if any passed by the District Registrar may prefer an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would contend that the complaint has not been entertained in view of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration vide letter dated 29.09.2023, which was issued based on the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.14546 & batch etc., of 2022 dated 27.03.2023 and W.P.No.28728 of 2018 dated 27.06.2023 & W.P.No.18814 of 2023 dated

27.06.2023. The letter dated 29.09.2023 reads as under:

@bghUs; bjhlhg; hf jkpH;ehL jpUj;jr;rl;lk; 41-2022 mKy;gLj;jg;gl;L mjid ifahSk; tHpKiwfs; bjhlh;ghf ghh;it 1y; fhqk; ,t;tYtyf foj tHp midj;J khtl;lg;gjpthsh;fSf;Fk; mwpt[iu tH';fg;gll; J/

jw;nghJ ghhi; t 3y; fhqk; tHf;fpy; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpis tH';fpa Mizapy;

fPH;f;fz;lthW fUj;J bjhptpj;Js;sJ/

i. whether the recitals in a document presented for registration, can be examined and determine that such document was fraudulently executed or registered;

ii. Whether a document in which the recitals alone are questioned can be considered only as voidable which would normally necessitate the filing of the suit to set aside the particular document or whether even those documents can be cancelled by the Sub Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act;

iii. Whether exercise of power under Section 77A must be restricted to registration of documents in contravention to Section 22-A or 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908 alone?

iv. Whether the exercise of such power under Section

77A of the Registration Act can be prospective in nature of retrospective in nature?

Larger Bench nkw;go tpdhf;fis guprPypj;jpl f;F Larger ePjpkd;wk; ghpe;Jiuj;Js;sJ vdW; k;. nkw;go Bench d; Kot[ tUk; tiu rhh;gjpthsh;fs; vt;tpj eltof;ifa[k; bjhlu ntz;lhk; vdt[k; Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,nj nghy; ghhi; t (5)?y; fhqk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w khz;g[kpf