IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
M.R.Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar,(ADMIN) – Respondent
Writ Petition
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks mandamus for considering cancellation application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. section 77a struck down; no power to cancel fraudulent deed. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed due to lack of authority. (Para 4) |
| 4. direct police complaint and civil suit for remedy. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This writ petition has filed to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the Petitioner dated 13.02.2023.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the 3rd respondent had executed the sale deed dated 19.05.2011 in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, he executed another sale deed dated 12.07.2013 for the very same subject property in favour of the 4th respondent and registered the same. Hence, the petitioner had filed an application before the respondent, requesting for cancellation of a fraudulent sale deed by invoking the power available to them under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the said application was not considered by the respondent till date.
Hence, this petition.
3. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that now, the validity of Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908, was struck down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 in W.P.No.10291 of 2022. In such case, the said application for cancellation of fraudulent document cannot be entertained by the respondents. Hence, he would submit that now, the only recourse available to the petitioner is to file a petition before the concerned Civil Court either for cancellation of aforesaid fraudulent document or to declare the same as “null and void”. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
5. In the case on hand, initially, an application was filed by the petitioner, requesting the respondents to cancel the fraudulent sale deed dated 12.07.2013, by invoking the power available to them under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908. The said application was not at all considered by the respondent.
6. As rightly contended by the respondent, the validity of Section 77A and
68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, was struck down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 in W.P.No.10291 of 2022. In such case, the respondents will not have any power to cancel the aforesaid fraudulent document.
7. Once the petitioner gains knowledge on the aspect of forged documents, he is entitled to file a criminal complaint, on the aspect of alleged fabrication of records, in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. This aspect was also upheld by the Apex Court in number of Judgments.
8. When such being the case, this Court directs the petitioner to file a complaint before the concerned Police Authorities with regard to the alleged fabrication of sale deed on the part of the 3rd respondent. With regard to the cancellation of said deed, it is up to the petitioner to file a petition, for cancellation of sale deed, before the appropriate Civil Court.
9. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost.
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.