SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
M.R.Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar,(ADMIN) – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Gopinathan
For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP for R1 & 2, Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston for R4

Section 77A of Registration Act struck down; registrars cannot cancel fraudulent deeds; pursue civil court or police complaint.

Headnote:Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908, was struck down by Division Bench in W.P.No.10291 of 2022. Petitioner sought cancellation of subsequent fraudulent sale deed executed on 12.07.2013 for same property earlier sold to petitioner on 19.05.2011. Court held respondents lack power to cancel post-striking down. Main issue: Validity of application under struck-down Section 77A for cancelling fraudulent sale deed. Ratio: Authorities cannot entertain cancellation requests after Section 77A invalidated; civil court remedy available. Writ petition dismissed.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top