Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
N.Saraswathi – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General Of Registration – Respondent
Writ Petition|WMP.No.18778 of 2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Suresh
For the Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP for R1 to 3
On discovering forged registration documents, file criminal complaint with police under Sections 82/83; civil court for cancellation.
Headnote:The Registration Act, 1908, Sections 81 and 83 address actions against fraudulent registrations. Petitioner sought mandamus directing registration authorities to act on a settlement deed (Document No. 3059/2020) allegedly executed fraudulently by the same settlor under a power of attorney. Court found representation to authorities ignored but held petitioner must pursue remedy. Issues framed as whether writ court can direct action under Sections 81/83 or if alternative remedies apply. Ratio: Upon knowledge of forged documents, affected party must file criminal complaint under Sections 82/83 before police, as upheld by Apex Court; civil court for cancellation. Writ petition disposed directing petitioner to file police complaint and civil suit if seeking cancellation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks action on fraudulent settlement deed. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. respondents urge criminal complaint or civil suit. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. direct police complaint and civil court for cancellation. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
**R4 impleaded as per order dated 26.03.2026 passed in WMP.No.18778 of 2025 Respondent(s)
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take action under section 81 and 83 of the Registration Act in respect of the document registered under document No. 3059 / 2020 dated 5.10.2020 registered in the office of the
3rd respondent purported to be a settlement deed.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Suresh For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP for R1 to 3
ORDER
This writ petition has filed to the respondents to take action under section
81 and 83 of the Registration Act in respect of the document registered under document No. 3059 / 2020 dated 5.10.2020 registered in the office of the 3rd respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, one Solai Sivaselvam (petitioner’s brother’s son) had executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the 4th respondent on 22.06.2011. Subsequently, the 4th respondent had executed the settlement deed dated 05.10.2020 in favour her favour, i.e., the very same settlor had executed a settlement deed in favour of very same settlee. Hence, the petitioner had filed a representation before the official respondents, requesting them to take action against the 4th respondent in terms of Section 81 & 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the said representation was not considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.
3. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in number of cases, the petitioner, himself, 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.
4. Further, he would submit that now, the 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.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
6. In the case on hand, a representation was filed by the petitioner, requesting the official respondents to take action against the 4th respondent for executing the settlement deed dated 05.10.2022 in a fraudulent manner. The said representation was not at all considered by the respondent.
7. As rightly contended by the respondent, 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 settlement deed on the part of the 4th respondent. With regard to the cancellation of said deed, it is up to the petitioner to file a petition for the same before the appropriate Civil Court.
9. With the above directions, this Writ petition is disposed of. No cost.
