Pothumponnu v. The District Registrar (Madurai South)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Pothumponnu ... Petitioner versus
1. The District Registrar (Madurai South), Mahal Registrar Office, Madurai District.
2. The Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam Sub Registrar Office, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
3. Karanthamalai
4. Gunasekaran
5. Rathamani
6. Bose
7. Chezhiyan
8. Jegan 1/8
9. Gopinath
10. Yogini ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2023 to cancel the forged sale deed vide Document No. 11116/2008 dated 14.11.2008 created by the 3rd to 10th respondents within the stipulated time period fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar For R1 and R2 : Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner claims that the property comprised in S.No. 58/8B1A1A1A, 54/8B2 to an extent of 1 acres 83 cents situated at Urappanur Bit-I Village, Keela Urappanur Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District belonged to his father. His father sold out 53 cents vide a sale deed in Document No.689/1993 and retained the remaining lands. After the demise of his father, he enjoyed the said property. While so, the 3rd respondent, namely, Karanthamalai, along 2/8
with respondents 5 to 10, by taking advantage of the similarity in the name of the petitioner's father, created some document and sold the said property vide forged sale deed dated 14.11.2008 in Doc.No. 11116/2008 in favour of 4th respondent. In this regard, he submitted a representation dated 20.05.2023 to the respondent 1 and 2 requesting them to cancel the said sale deed and not to make any registration in the said property. Since there was no response, he filed another representation dated 22.06.2023 to the Chief Minister Cell. As there was no action on the said representation, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., [(2016) 10 SCC 767] has held that that the power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter and in the absence of any express provision on that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Registering Officer would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Therefore, for cancellation of registered documents, the 3/8
State of Tamil Nadu brought an amendment to the Registration Act, vide the Registration (Tamil Nadu Second Amendment) Act, 2021. By this amendment Act, Sections 22B, 77A, 77B, 81A and 81B were inserted in the Registration Act. Section 77A provides the power to the Registrar to cancel registered documents, if it is found to be in contravention of sections 22A and 22B.
3. Whereas, this Court in S.M. Hajabakrutheen Vs. The Inspector General of Registration [W.P.(MD) Nos. 14546 of 2022 batch, dated 27.03.2023], in view of the conflicting views taken by two different benches of this Court regarding the applicability of Section 77A, has referred various issues for consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the reference order is extracted as follows- "20. In view of the reasonings of the Full Bench and in view of the conflicting views of the two learned Single Judges the following issues are referred for due consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court.
4/8
i) whether the recitals in a document presented for registration, can be examined to determine that such document was fraudulently executed or registered; ii) whether a document in which the recitals alone are questioned can be considered only as voidable which would normally necessitate the filing of the suit to set aside the particular document or whether even those documents can be cancelled by the Sub Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act;
iii) whether exercise of power under Section 77A must be restricted to registration of documents in contravention to Section 22-A or 22-B of Registration Act, 1908 alone?
iv) whether the exercise of such power under Section 77A of the Registration Act can be prospective in nature or retrospective in nature?
21. To determine these issues, the Registry may place all the writ petitions before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge for constitution of a Larger Bench to examine the issues in detail.
22. Till a decision is rendered by the Larger Bench, let 5/8
no further action be taken by any of the Sub Registrars, who may await further orders of the Larger Bench."
4. By referring to the above order, this Court in A.Shanthi v. The District Registrar [WP.No.18814 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023] has reiterated that the District Registrars across Tamil Nadu shall not take any action on an application under Section 77A of the Registration Act, till the reference is answered by the Larger Bench. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:- "4.In the light of the above order, there is no scope for considering the representation made by the petitioner at present and the petitioner has to necessarily await for the final orders to be passed by the Larger Bench on the issue. Hence, this writ petition is closed for the present. 5.It is brought to the notice of this Court that in spite of the above order passed by this Court, the District Registrars are entertaining the applications under Section 77A of the Registration Act and even orders are passed. It is not known as to whether this order was circulated to all the District 6/8
Registrars in State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the above order, this Court once again reiterates that the District Registrars across Tamil Nadu shall not take any further action on the application submitted under Section 77A of the Registration Act, till a final decision is rendered by the Larger Bench. The Inspector General of Registration is directed to issue a Circular in this regard to all the District Registrars across the State of Tamil Nadu immediately"
5. In view of the above decisions, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court and if any civil suit is filed, the same shall be entertained by the civil Court by excluding the period for which this writ petition was pending before this Court for the purpose of calculating the limitation period. The writ petitioner is also at liberty to invoke Section 77A of the Act upon the outcome of the reference made. No costs.
17.08.2023 ogy NCC : Yes / No.
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
7/8
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy To
1. The District Registrar (Madurai South), Mahal Registrar Office, Madurai District.
2. The Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam Sub Registrar Office, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
17.08.2023 8/8