HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
Navamani Paulraj.K – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar – Respondent
Registration - Writ Petition - Registration Act 1908 Sections 68, 77A - The court held that the Registrar lacks the power to annul a registered document based solely on allegations of fraud, reaffirming that title disputes must be settled in competent courts and highlighting limitations within the Registration Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the annulment of a settlement deed based on a complaint alleging fraud in the title. The original property owners had executed a deed that was later contested by a third party, leading to orders that deemed the deed non-genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the annulment orders by the respondents to be invalid, stating that a Registrar does not have the authority to cancel a registered document based solely on allegations without a substantive legal basis.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Registrar could annul a registered deed based merely on allegations of fraud or if this required judicial scrutiny.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Registrar's power is limited to supervision of acts, not canceling registered documents, necessitating that title disputes be ruled upon by a court of law.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed, and the annulment orders are set aside.
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 12.01.2021 made in No.6189/A2/2020 and subsequently as confirmed by the 2nd Respondent by means of an order dated 12.11.2021 made in Na.Ka.No.548/tha.pi/2021 and set aside the same as meritless and for a consequential direction to the Respondents to remove the finding as made by the Respondents with regard to Document No.3589/2018 dated 20.08.2018 and obtained Encumbrance Certificate on 30.03.2022 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Surandai, Tenkasi District, as fraudulent document, forthwith.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the original patta of the subject property stands in the name of Seronmani Ammal, Palanisami, Lakshmanan and Navamani Paulraj. Thereafter, one of the patta holders of the said property viz., Seronmani viz., the second petitioner had executed a settlement deed bearing Document No.3589 of 2018, dated 20.08.2018 in favour of first petitioner in respect of the western side of the subject property. When the property was being enjoyed by the petitioners, the third respondent has given a complaint alleging that 2 acres 87 cents of the subject property had perpetrated impersonation by the 2nd petitioner in favour of the 1st petitioner. Based on the said complaint, an enquiry has been conducted and finally an order was alleged to have been passed by the first respondent declaring the transaction between the petitioners by means of settlement deed is not genuine vide document No.3589 of 2018, dated 12.01.2021. As against the order of the first respondent, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has also confirmed the order of the first respondent, vide order dated 12.11.2021 and an entry has also been made in this regard in Document No.3589/2018. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that based on the complaint given by the third respondent, the first respondent has passed an order, declaring that the transaction between the petitioners by means of settlement deed is not genuine vide Document No.3589 of 2018. This Court is of the view that merely based on the allegation of one side, as a matter of right, the document cannot be annulled and the enquiry cannot be initiated. The title dispute has to be decided only before the necessary Court and the Registering Authority has no power to go into all these transactions. In Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power conferred on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the registration of the document already registered. Sections 22-A and 22- B were inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2022 and Act 41 of 2022 respectively to prevent registration of certain category of the documents. Thereafter, Section 77-A has been brought by Act 41 of 2022 to cancel the document registered in contravention of Sections 22-A and 22-B not beyond it. Now Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 also is struck down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10291 of 2022 batch as unconditional. Such being the position, this Court is of the definite view that the title cannot be decided by the Registering Authorities. These facts have been discussed by this Court in W.P.No.29706 of 2022 [G.Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others] and the Order in the writ petition is as follows:
“... 3. It is relevant to note that the object of the law of registration is to provide public notice of the transaction embodied therein. The exec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.