Registering authorities lack power to cancel documents as fraudulent after Section 77-A invalidation; title disputes for civil court.

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Yasmin Begum For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate COMMON ORDER These two writ petitions are connected and are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.(MD)No.16241 of 2024 has been filed by K.Thilagar. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records, the grievance of the petitioner is that the property originally belonged to his father, who executed a registered Will dividing the property into A, B, C, and D Schedules and bequeathing shares to himself as well as to his brother’s son. The Will also contains a clause restraining alienation of the property.

3. While so, it is alleged that the other branch of the family is attempting to deal with the property. A settlement deed bearing Document No.

5706 of 2022 has been registered, and based on the same, another settlement deed bearing Document No.2129 of 2024 has also been fraudulently registered. Therefore, by a representation dated 29.06.2024, the petitioner sought for cancellation of the said documents on the ground that they are fraudulent.

4. Subsequently, when a further document was presented by the seventh respondent, namely S.Nandhini Devi, the same was refused for registration by a refusal check slip dated 20.03.2025. Challenging the same, the said S.Nandhini Devi has filed W.P.(MD)No.12727 of 2025.

5. It is seen that, in the refusal check slip, the pendency of W.P.

(MD)No.16241 of 2024 has been cited as the reason for refusal.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.16241 of 2024 would submit that, even though Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been declared unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel vs. Inspector General of Registration and others¹, it is still open to the registering authorities to enquire

1 (2024) 4 LW 110 : (2024) 5 MLJ 107 : (2024) 4 CTC 769 into the matter under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner’s representation ought to be considered and the aforementioned documents should be declared as fraudulent.

7. The learned counsel further contended that, in the documents presented, the entire property, including the portion bequeathed to the petitioner, has been included in the schedule, thereby causing prejudice to him.

8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Sub-Registrar submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, after conducting due enquiry, the impugned refusal check slip was issued.

9. With reference to the claim in W.P.(MD)No.16241 of 2024, it is submitted that the Sub-Registrar or the registering authorities no longer have the power to declare a document as fraudulent.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 10 and 11 in W.P.(MD)No.16241 of 2024 submitted that the properties have already been dealt with by way of mortgage.

11. The learned counsel appearing for S.Nandhini Devi, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.12727 of 2025, submitted that the prayer in W.P.(MD)No.16241 of 2024 is no longer sustainable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court. Once the writ petition is disposed of, the reason mentioned in the refusal check slip would no longer survive. It is further submitted that, in the document presented, only the portion allotted to the respective branch has been dealt with, and the mention of Schedule A is only for describing the entire property. 12. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records.

13. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.Kathirvel's case [cited supra], the prayer to declare the documents as fraudulent cannot be entertained.

14. With reference to the contention that the