Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36037
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
S.Zainaba Beevi – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar, Office Of District Registrar, (Registration), Door No.4VXR Plus H79, M.V. Street, Veera Raghva Nagar, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur- 602 001. – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Suresh
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Harish, GA for R1 & 3, Dr.C.E.Pratap, GA (Crl.side) for R2
Registration authorities cannot cancel fraudulent deeds; pending criminal enquiry under Section 82 suffices, no separate enquiry needed.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Relevant provisions under the Registration Act, 1908, including Sections 68(2), 77, and 82, govern cancellation of documents and enquiries into fraudulent registrations. Petitioner discovered fraudulent sale deeds registered post-husband's death via impersonation using forged power of attorney on inherited property. Court finds registration authorities lack power to cancel documents as Sections 77 and 68(2) struck down; criminal investigation under Section 82 pending suffices. Second Paragraph: Key issue framed as whether respondents must conduct separate enquiry and cancel fraudulent deeds despite ongoing criminal case. Ratio: One complaint triggers sufficient enquiry under Section 82; no additional enquiry needed as criminal case Crime No.53/2024 registered on 29.02.2024 investigates 2022 offences. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing second respondent to complete pending enquiry on merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fraudulent deeds registered post-death via impersonation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. pending criminal case suffices for enquiry. (Para 3) |
| 3. no power to cancel; one enquiry under section 82 enough. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. direct completion of pending police enquiry. (Para 6) |
Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry and dispose the petitioner’s detailed complaint/representation dated on 19.03.2024, for cancellation of fraudulent deeds in 1) Document No.1377/
2022, on the file of SRO Avadi dated on 01.02.2022, 2) Doc.No.6625/2022, on the file of SRO Avadi, Dated 20.04.2022, 3) Document No.6870/2022, on the file of SRO Avadi, Dated on 29.04.2022, 4) Doc No.15129/2022, on the file of SRO Avadi, Dated 15.09.2022.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.Suresh For Respondent(s) : Mr.P.Harish, GA for R1 & 3 Dr.C.E.Pratap, GA (Crl.side) for R2 R4 to 6-N/R/N No appearance for R7 & 8
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry and dispose the petitioner’s detailed complaint/representation dated on 19.03.2024, for cancellation of fraudulent deeds in 1) Document No.1377/ 2022, on the file of SRO Avadi dated on 01.02.2022, 2) Doc.No.6625/2022, on the file of SRO Avadi, Dated 20.04.2022, 3) Document No.6870/2022, on the file of SRO Avadi, Dated on 29.04.2022, 4) Doc No.15129/2022, on the file of SRO Avadi, Dated 15.09.2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s husband had purchased a plot bearing No.135, S.No.69 to an extent of 3000 sq.ft. vide doc.No.1523 of 1985, dated 18.03.1985. After his demise, a fraudulent power of attorney was registered by using the petitioner’s husband’s personal particulars through impersonation. Based on which, the aforesaid properties were sold to the third parties by way of sale deeds and all the documents were registered in the year 2022. When the petitioner intended to settle the said properties, she came to know about the fraudulent deeds. Therefore, she made an application before the respondents 1 and 2 dated 19.03.2024 and 29.04.2024 respectively, to conduct an enquiry and cancel all the fraudulent documents, which were registered fraudulently after the death of her husband i.e., after 06.07.1999. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition to direct the first respondent to conduct an enquiry and dispose the petitioner’s complaint/representation dated 19.03.2024 for cancellation of fraudulent deeds.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit that when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid offence, she made a criminal complaint before the second respondent on 29.02.2024 itself, based on which, a case was registered in Crime No.53 of 2024 against the private respondents. Since one complaint is sufficient to enquire the matter in terms of Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, there is no need for conducting another enquiry. As far as cancellation of documents is concerned, the respondents have no power to cancel the same, since Section 77 and 68(2)
of the Registration Act was struck down by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3. In regard to cancellation of fraudulent deeds, certainly, the respondents have no power to cancel the same, as Section 77 and 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 was struck down by this Court. In respect of conducting an enquiry under Section 82 of the Registration Act, the offence was committed in the year 2022 and upon knowing the same, the petitioner had registered a complaint before the second respondent on 29.02.2024, wherein a criminal case was also registered in Crime No.53 of 2024 and the investigation is pending. Therefore, there is no
