Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Abdul Raheem – Appellant
Versus
District Registrar – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Kalimuthu
For the Respondents: A. Baskaran
The Registration authorities lack the jurisdiction to cancel registered documents or adjudicate disputes involving allegations of fraudulent inducement; such matters concerning the validity of executed documents must be resolved by a competent civil court.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct authorities to conduct an enquiry and cancel registered documents alleged to be forged. The petitioner contended that they were deceived into executing a sale deed under the guise of it being a lease agreement. The Court determined that since the grievance related to the circumstances of document execution rather than impersonation or classic forgery, the Sub-Registrar lacked the jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry. The core issue is whether the Registration authorities are empowered to adjudicate upon the validity of registered documents based on claims of fraudulent inducement. The Court determined that the Sub-Registrar is not empowered to conduct a rowing enquiry into such factual circumstances, and that the appropriate forum for such disputes is the civil court. The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. registration authorities cannot adjudicate disputed facts regarding document execution validity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
ORDER
The writ petition is filed for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and
2 to conduct an enquiry and to cancel the forged document registered in Document No.1289/2018, dated 30.08.2018 and the subsequent Document No. 619/2026 dated 23.02.2026 based on the petitioner's representation dated
24.04.2026.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the representation, it is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent's parents leave the petitioner at the Sub-Registrar office by representing that the petitioner is to execute a lease agreement, and believing them, the petitioner had executed the document before the Sub Registrar. But only recently, he came to know that it was not a lease agreement but it was a sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner has made the above representation. Thus, it can be seen that it was not any impersonation or forgery that is involved. The claim of the petitioner is that by making him to believe that it was only a lease agreement, the third respondent's parents made him to execute a sale deed. With reference to that, kind of an enquiry can be made only by this civil Court and the Sub Registrar is not empowered to conduct such rowing enquiry with reference to the circumstances in which the petitioner executed the document.
3. Therefore, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
