Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
MRS.V.S.SANKARI – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(ADMIN – Respondent
Fraud - Registration - Registration Act 1908, Sections 68(2), 22-A, 22-B - The court examined the powers of the Registrar and Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act, highlighting that only substantive law can allow the cancellation of registered documents due to alleged fraud, against mere circular orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to declare a release deed as fraudulent after claiming it was executed under duress and not reflective of the actual agreement. The petitioner requested an inquiry and cancellation of the document, which had not been acted upon by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar's powers under Section 68(2) do not include the authority to cancel registration based solely on complaints of fraud. It determined that proper civil proceedings are necessary for such a declaration, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction for the Registrar to annul documents outright.
Issues: Whether the Registrar has the authority to cancel a registered document based on allegations of fraud without a substantive provision permitting such action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without specific statutory power to cancel registrations, allegations of fraud cannot suffice for annulment; the burden of proof lies significantly upon showing true evidence of fraud or forgery.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2024 in accordance with law, within a stipulated time and declare the registration of Release Deed dated 12.06.2010 registered as Document No.1837 of 2010 by the Sub Registrar, Alandur, as “Fraudulent Document”.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the son of the petitioner, Sankaranarayanan requested the petitioner and other legal heirs to release ¾ share in undivided ½ share in his favour and believing his words, release deed dated 1.2.06.2010 was executed by the petitioner along with his daughter and his younger son in favour of Sankaranarayanan. However, the release deed has been registered for the entire extent of the property in favour of his son Sankaranarayanan. According to him, it is a fraudulent document. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation to the first respondent to conduct enquiry under section 68[2] of the Registration Act and to declare the release deed as fraudulent document. However, no action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
5. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioner is trying to achieve what he could not achieve before the Civil Court by seeking a direction by way of Writ Petition. Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows:
“68. Power of Registration to superintend and control Sub Registrars.
(1) every Sub Registrar perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub Registrar is situate.
(2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (Whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered.”
6. The above provision makes it clear that the said section confers power upon the Registrar to supervise and control all the acts of the Sub-Registar. Sub-Section 2 empowers the Registrar to issue any order consistent with the Act, which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub- Registrar subordinate to him. Similarly, the Registrar shall also have power in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered. The above power empowering the Registar to issue any order is a power of superitendence and supervision and not a power vested to cancel the registration of the document. Therefore, relying upon Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and issuing such circular cannot be valid in the eye of law. Unless a specific power and express provision is made in the Act empowering the Registrar to cancel the document, such powers cannot be conferred by the Inspector General of Registration by taking aid of 68(2) of the , 1908.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of N. Ramayee v Sub-
Registrar reported in (2020)6 CTC 697, wherein it has held as follows:
“21.In Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. , 2017 (1) CTC
414 (SC): 2016 (10) SCC 767, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the role of Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered. Power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter.”
8. The said judgment has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 4844 of 2021. In view of the above dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. , reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 and the Division Bench of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
