The Registering Authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate allegations of fraud or impersonation following the striking down of Section 77A of the Registration Act.

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

The lis on hand has been instituted, challenging the Writ Order dated

25.10.2024 in W.P.No.14645 of 2024.

2. The proceedings of the District Registrar, rejecting the application submitted by the Appellant, seeking cancellation of the registered Sale Deed in proceeding dated 14.02.2024 came to be challenged by the Appellant in the writ proceedings.

3. The District Registrar considered the application filed by the Appellant/Petitioner and made a finding that the allegations of impersonation cannot be adjudicated by him and relegated the Appellant/Petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court of law for redressal of her grievances.

4. Not satisfied with the Order of the District Registrar, the Appellant/Petitioner filed the Writ Petition. The Writ Court considered the issues and made a finding that Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is pending.

5. Under these circumstances, the District Registrar has no power to adjudicate the allegations relating to fraud or impersonation by invoking the powers conferred under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 . Thus, the Appellant/Petitioner has chosen to file the present Intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent, 1865.

6. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant would contend that impersonation is apparent on the face of record. Mere verification of the signature of the Appellant/Petitioner in the Original Deed as well as the alleged Sale Deed would be sufficient to form an opinion that the signatures are forged.

7. When a prima facie case has been established by the Appellant/Petitioner, the Registering Authority ought to have initiated action for cancellation of the registered Sale Deed by exercising the power conferred under Section 82 and Section 83 of the Registration Act read with Rule 54 and Rule 55 of the Registration Rules.

8. Since the respondents failed to exercise the power, the Writ Petition came to be instituted. The Writ Court rejected the Petition merely on the ground that Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been struck down. Therefore, the District Registrar, cannot exercise any powers to deal with the allegations of forgery and impersonation etc., 9. Learned Senior Counsel placed on reliance the Judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of “ Mary Mohan Chacko and another Vs. Inspector General, Department of Registration and others ” reported in2024 SCC OnLine Ker 1016 in W.P.(C) No.33749 of 2023 dated 29.02.2024, wherein a reference was made under Section 83A of the .

10. Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court considered the issues under Section 83A of the Registration Act, 1908 , deals with “Cancellation of registered documents in certain cases”. The said provision is pari materia to Section 77A of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendments) Act, 2008, which came to be struck down. However, Section 83A of the relates to the amendment made in the State of Kerala (State Amendment), cannot be applied in the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the said Judgment is of no avail to the Appellant/Petitioner for the purpose of succeeding in the present Writ Appeal.

11. Let us consider the scope of Section 83 and Section 84 of the Registration Act, 1908 relied u