O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in DRP.No.3/2016, dated 04.03.2016 by the first respondent.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are husband and wife. The property measuring an extent of 2324 sq.ft. was originally belonged to one Packiri @ Krishnasamy and he died intestate on 19.03.1960 leaving behind his wife Thaiammal, who also died intestate in the year 1963 and six daughters viz., Vimala, Sakunthala, Shantha, Padma, Jaya and Uma. While so, one of the daughters viz., Vimala filed a suit in C.S.No.176/1964 before this Court and as per the judgment of this Court, dated 19.08.1966, the property was allotted to other daughters excluding Shakunthala. Thereafter, the said Padma and Jaya had executed a power of attorney (POA) on 10.09.2003 in favour of the first petitioner in respect of their shares. The said power was allegedly cancelled on 04.03.2006 under document No.233/B4/2006 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret. Though the cancellation of POA was informed to the first petitioner, he entered into a sale agreement with one Sangeetha, who is none other than his wife, on 09.07.2005. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 5 have filed a suit in O.S.No.897 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in relation to 2324 sq.ft. Since it was processed, the second petitioner filed Lok Adalat Case No.2675/2008 and the the same was settled before the Lok Adalat under Award dated 23.06.2008. The said award was registered before the Sub Registrar on 11.11.2008. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner on 20.02.2009 in document No.592/2009, document No.895/2009 dated 12.03.2009 and document No.351/2011 dated 25.01.2011. Thereafter, the first petitioner has entered into another sale agreement with his brother viz., Ganesh on 15.12.2005. However, the said sale agreement was not processed and therefore, the first petitioner's brother filed a suit in O.S.No.63/2007 in respect of 924 sq.ft. in which, a written statement was filed by the first petitioner stating that POA was cancelled on 04.03.2006. Thus the first petitioner alienated the property based on the other documents including the Lok Adalat Award passed in the year 2008 in favour of the second petitioner. In the interregnum, the respondents 2 to 5 have made a complaint before the first respondent against the petitioners to cancel the sale deeds which were executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner. Without considering the real facts, the first respondent has cancelled the sale deeds vide proceedings dated 04.03.2016. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court seeking to quash the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the time of execution of the sale deeds, the marriage between the petitioners was not performed. Hence, the alienation in favour of the second petitioner in respect of the subject properties is perfectly valid and therefore, the order of the first respondent in annulling the sale deeds viz., document No.592/2009, dated 20.09.2009, document No.895/2009 dated 12.03.2009 and document No.351/2011 dated 25.01.2011 is illegal. Further, the first respondent has no power to annul the above said sale deeds or cancel the registration. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.491 of 2020 dated 18.02.2022, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court categorically held that based upon the order of the Supreme Court, the Registrar does not have powers to annul the documents and the disputes have to be settled before the Court of Law. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that admittedly, the POA was