SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22223

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J
A.S.SUGANTHI @ V.SUKANTHI – Appellant
Versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION – Respondent



Sections 77-A and 77-B of the Registration Act allow the District Registrar to cancel fraudulent registrations made after the amendment despite ongoing challenges to the amendment's application.

Headnote:

Registration - Writ Appeals - Registration Act 1908 - Sections 77-A, 77-B - The court interpreted Sections 77-A and 77-B, allowing the District Registrar to cancel registered documents deemed fraudulent after the amendment without barring such inquiries based on ongoing litigation regarding retroactive application.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed writ petitions seeking a mandate for the District Registrar to investigate and resolve complaints regarding fraudulent registrations of certain documents.

Issues: Whether documents with allegations of fraud can be cancelled under Section 77-A despite ongoing related cases, and the prospective versus retrospective application of the section.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is necessary for the District Registrar to address complaints under Section 77-A for documents registered after the amendment, as the law affords this power irrespective of related cases.

Final Decision: The common order dated 08.02.2024 was set aside, directing District Registrars to conduct inquiries on complaints under Section 77-A.

C O M M ON J U D G M E N T

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

These Writ Appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 08.02.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.2848, 2851, 2852, 2855, 2856, 2859 and 2862 of 2024.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us, who instituted writ of mandamus to direct the District Registrar to proceed with the enquiry based on the representations submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant dated

11.05.2023 and 22.05.2023 and conclude the same.

3. We have perused a copy of the representations submitted by the writ petitioner to the District Registrar dated 11.05.2023 and 22.05.2023. The appellant states that some fraudulent documents dated 25.03.2023 in Document Nos.1413/2023, 1414/2023, 1416/2023, 1418/2023, 1417/2023, 1415/2023 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Nambiyur and Document Nos.4737/2023 and 4738/2023 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Avinasi were registered. Thus, the appellant has filed a complaint under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, to cancel the documents 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; bjhlh;ghf jkpH;ehL jpUj;jrr; ll; k; 41-2022 mKy;gLj;jg;gl;L mjid ifahSk; tHpKiwfs; bjhlh;ghf ghhi; t 1y; fhqk; ,tt; Ytyf foj tHp midj;J khtll; g;gjpthshf; SfF; k; mwpti[ u tH'f; g;gll; J/

jwn;ghJ ghhi; t 3y; fhqk; tHff; py; brdi; d cah;ePjpkdw; kJiu fpis tH'f; pa Mizapy;

fPHf; ;fzl; thW fUj;J bjhptpjJ; ss; J/

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 nkwg; o tpdhf;fis gupryP pj;jpl f;F Larger ePjpkdw; k; ghpe;Jiuj;Jss; J vd;Wk.; nkw;go Bench d; Kot[ tUk; tiu rhh;gjpthshf; s; vtt; pj eltofi; fak[ ; bjhlu ntzl; hk; vdtk[ ; Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,nj nghy; ghhi; t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top