Court can cancel forged documents to uphold property rights under Article 226, ensuring justice against fraud.

Order

The prayer, in this Petition is for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent to take steps and to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner's dated 17.06.2023 within a time frame.

2. Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's father had passed away in the year 1995, leaving behind him, the petitioner and his sister as the legal heirs; that the petitioner's father, during his life-time had purchased a property situated at Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District; that since the petitioner's father died intestate, leaving no Will, the petitioner and his sister have vested right over the property and the petitioner's sister also executed a Release Deed dated 03.07.2023 in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property; that, the petitioner, to his shock and surprise, came to know that through the neighbours that one Karthick, a buyer from Chennai is intending to purchase the property, which was inherited by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner contacted the said buyer, who provided the Encumbrance Certificate of the property, wherein, the petitioner noticed that a forged Power of Attorney was executed on 25.03.2023, as if, the petitioner's father has executed the subject property in favour of the fourth respondent, and by virtue of the said Power of Attorney, the fourth respondent was intending to sell the property to the aforesaid buyer, viz., Karthick.

2.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner's father died in the year 1995 itself and when the Tahsildar, Thanjavur also issued a Death Certificate in that regard, there is no possibility for execution of any Power of Attorney in favour of the fourth respondent, which was alleged to have been executed by the petitioner's father in the year, 2023 (i.e. on 25.03.2023); that therefore, the petitioner setting out all such entire facts made a complaint as well as representation to the respondent concerned for taking appropriate action against the fourth respondent and also to stop further encumbrances on the basis of the forged Power of Attorney; that since the petitioner is residing at U.S.A, the petitioner was not able to follow the issue in person, hence, the petitioner visited India on 04.03.2024 and contacted all the respondents, however, no proper reply was forthcoming from them, which necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present Writ Petition seeing for the aforesaid relief.

2.3 It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent by playing fraud, maneuvered to obtain a forged Aadhaar Card in the name of the petitioner's father, Sivalogam, and by forging the signature of the petitioner's father, created a forged Power of Attorney in his favour, which has to be necessarily cancelled. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enrollment and updation of Aadhaar Card by the residents of Tamil Nadu was launched only in the year 2014, whereas, the petitioner's father died in the year 1995, therefore, the petitioner's father obviously would not have possessed the Aadhar Card, during the said period, but, fourth respondent impersonated himself, as if, he is Sivalogam, and obtained a Aadhaar Card in his name and misusing the signature of the petitioner's father, executed the forged Power of Attorney, which act, is highly reprehensible, and hence, the learned counsel prays for appropriate orders.

3. The learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to