ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.09.2014 wherein he has prayed for cancellation of certain forged documents.

2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute and he has executed a registered power deed in favour of the third respondent herein in Doc.No.134/2009 dated 03.03.2009 for an extent of 1.36 acres. Thereafter, he has cancelled the said power deed on 06.09.2010 vide Document No.519/2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though the power deed in favour of the third respondent was cancelled on 06.09.2010, the power agent has proceeded to execute three sale deeds in favour of third party on 16.09.2011, 24.10,2011 and 05.12.2011 relying upon the said cancellation power deed. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these three sale deeds in Doc.Nos. 4574/2011, 5177/2011 and 6012/2011 on the file of the second respondent herein are forged documents and they should be cancelled after conducting enquiry. For the purpose, the petitioner has given a representation on 17.09.2014. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had contended that though the petitioner has alleged that the power deed has been cancelled on 06.09.2010, the same was never communicated to the third respondent either orally or through any written document. Since the third respondent was under the impression that she continues to be the power agent of the writ petitioner, she has proceeded to execute the sale deeds. When the petitioner has not put the power agent on notice, the sale deeds executed by the third respondent in favour of the third party would be binding upon the writ petitioner also. Hence, the contention of the writ petitioner that these three sale deeds are fraudulent documents is not legally sustainable. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.Admittedly, the writ petitioner is the owner of the property and he has executed a registered power deed in favour of the third respondent on 03.03.2009 by a registered document. The said power deed was cancelled by way of a registered document on 06.09.2010.However, one year thereafter, three sale deeds have been executed by the power agent in favour of the third party. Whenever a sale deed is presented by a power agent, the second respondent is duty bound to verify whether the power deed is subsisting or not. A perusal of the encumbrance certificate would clearly disclose that the power deed has already been cancelled. Hence, the petitioner has made out some prima facie for conducting an enquiry by the first respondent herein.

6.In view of the above said facts, the first respondent herein is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.09.2014 and conduct an enquiry and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve (12) weeks after affording due opportunity to the writ petitioner and the third respondent herein.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

27.10.2022 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No msa To

1.The District Registrar District Register Office Tuticorin

2.The Sub Registrar Sub Register Office Puthukottai Tuticorin District R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

msa Pre-delivery order made in W.P.(MD).No.19804 of 2014

27.10.2022