Registering authority cannot delete entries of alleged fake documents post Section 77-A unconstitutionality; civil court remedy available.

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct an enquiry on the basis of the written submissions dated 01.08.2023 and to delete the entries relating to the alleged fake and fraudulent Power of Attorney No.1931 of 2008 dated 19.09.2008, as well as the subsequent sale deeds registered in respect of the property in Survey No.23/4, Elanthipatty Village, Tiruchirapalli District, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

2. The writ petition has not been numbered and is listed under the caption “for maintainability.”

3. The Registry has raised an objection that the persons in whose favour the impugned documents stand have not been impleaded as parties, despite the prayer seeking to declare such documents as fake and fraudulent and to delete the corresponding entries. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted in open Court that such persons had already been given an opportunity during the enquiry conducted in the year 2023, and therefore, their impleadment may not be necessary. However, it was also fairly submitted that if impleadment is required, steps would be taken to implead them as parties to the writ petition.

4. Be that as it may, the principal relief sought in the writ petition is for deletion of entries on the ground that they are fake and fraudulent. It is relevant to note thatSection 77-Aof theRegistration Act, 1908has been declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court inM.Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration1. In view of the said declaration, even though an enquiry had been initiated earlier and written submissions had been filed, no further proceedings can be continued under the said provision. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the order of this Court inS.R.M.Packiri Rajan vs. Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department and others, W.P.(MD) No.10177 of 2021, dated 17.06.2021, wherein this Court had interfered with a document. However, the said order was passed at a time whenSection 77-Aof the Registration Act was in force.

1 (2024) SCC OnLine Mad 6154 : (2024) 4 LW 110 : (2024) 4 CTC 769

6. On the other hand, in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.Gopi vs. The Sub Registrar and others , (2026) 2 SCC 696, in paragraphs 18 and 19, it has been held as follows:

''18. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or registering authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer.

19. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.''

7. Thus, it is made clear that registration by itself does not create any rig