Madras High Court
S.Murugaganesan vs The Inspector General Of ... on 2 August, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
S.Murugaganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road
Chennai - 600 028.
2.The District Registrar
O/o.The District Registrar,
Rajagambiram,
Y.Othakadai, Madurai.
3.The Sub-Registrar
Theppakulam Sub-Registrar Office,
Rajagambiram,
Y.Othakadai, Madurai.
4.Pitchai
5.M.Indira
6.Chithra ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire
records in connection with the impugned order passed by the third
respondent vide the proceedings Ref. No.A.Thi.Mu.No.XXX/2021
dated 14.07.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a detailed enquiry as to the fraudulent
documents executed by respondents 4 to 6 vide Document No.2185/2006
and Document No.461/2007 dated 10.08.2006 and 15.02.2007,
respectively and make appropriate entries in the registering book and as
well as in the encumbrance certificate.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.Baskaran
Standing Counsel for Government
ORDER
The petitioner challenges an order dated 14.07.2021 of the
third respondent herein and seeks a consequential direction to
respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a detailed inquiry with regard to certain
allegedly fraudulent documents executed by respondents 4 to 6.
2. The petitioner asserts that he purchased Plot No.31, which
is part of a five acre property situated in R.S.No.2/1A at
Karuppapillaiyenthal Village, Madurai District. According to the
petitioner, Plot No.31 was purchased by one Mr.Rengasami Naidu on
29.12.1972. The said Rengasami Naidu executed a sale deed in favour of
the petitioner's vendor, namely, Mrs.Ambujam, vide Document No.947 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
1984. The said Ambujam, in turn, executed a registered sale deed in
favour of the petitioner vide Document No.2089 / 2012. The petitioner
traces his title to the property on the above basis.
3. The petitioner states that one Mr.R.Pitchai, who claims to
be the legal heir of Mr.Rengasami Naidu, had fraudulently executed a
sale deed dated 10.08.2006 in favour of the fifth respondent herein vide
Document No.2185 / 2006. It is further stated that the fifth respondent
executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.461 / 2007 on
15.02.2007 in favour of the sixth respondent.
4. Upon discovering the aforesaid fraudulent transactions
from the Encumbrance Certificate, the petitioner carried a representation
dated 14.12.2009 to respondents 1 to 3 herein and requested them to
conduct an inquiry under Sections 67, 68 and 83 of the Registration Act,
1908. Eventually, this resulted in passing of the impugned order dated
14.07.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention
first to the representation of the petitioner and thereafter to the impugned
order. By referring to the representation, learned counsel pointed out that
the object and purpose of the representation is clear from the operative
paragraph thereof, whereby the petitioner had requested the authority to
conduct an inquiry as regards the fraudulent registration of Document
No.2185 / 2006 and Document No.461 / 2007. In these circumstances,
learned counsel pointed out that the impugned order of 14.07.2021
ex facie discloses non-application of mind in as much as the authority
completely misconstrued the nature of the representation and
misinterpreted the same as being in the nature of an objection with regard
to future registration of conveyances in respect of the property in
question.
6. In support of these contentions, learned counsel referred
to and relied upon judgments reported in 2021 (1) CTC 839
(J.Jayaniithaa Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others) and
2021 (5) MLJ 220 (S.R.M.Packirirajan Vs.Inspector General of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
Registration). According to learned counsel, the aforesaid judgments lay
down that the registration authority has jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry
as to whether there was fraud or impersonation or forgery in relation to
the registration of a document. He further submitted that if fraud or the
like is established at such inquiry, the registration authority has the power
to indicate the same both in the records maintained for such purpose and
in the encumbrance certificate.
7. On the other hand, Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the
State, who appears on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, submits that an
appellate remedy is provided under Section 72 of the Registration Act.
Therefore, he submits that this Court should decline to exercise
jurisdiction. In addition, he submits that the present case involves
disputed questions of fact and, therefore, this Court should decline to
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since the Court
is not exercising appellate power.
8. Upon examining the representation dated 08.07.2021 of
the petitioner and the impugned order dated 14.07.2021, it is evident that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
the petitioner requested for an inquiry into the allegedly fraudulent
registration of Document No.2185 / 2006 and Document No.461 / 2007.
In response, the registration authority has clearly misconstrued the nature
of the representation and erroneously concluded that the petitioner was
seeking to prevent further registrations in respect of the said property. To
that extent, the petitioner's contentions are liable to be accepted.
9. However, the settled legal position is that the registration
authority does not have jurisdiction to decide questions of title. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced authoritatively on this issue in
Sathya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 10 SCC 767.
Likewise, a Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Latif Estate Line India
Limited Vs. Hadeeja Ammal, 2011 2 CTC 1, concluded that the
registration authority does not have the jurisdiction to unilaterally cancel
a sale deed and that such cancellation should either be by mutual consent
or based upon orders of a jurisdictional civil court.
10. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the
registration authorities cannot decide questions of title in the course of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
inquiry and should relegate the parties to an appropriate civil court for
such purpose. Nevertheless, the registration authorities are empowered
to decide whether the registration of a document was fraudulent,
including whether impersonation or forgery were involved in such
regard, and the registration authority may conduct an inquiry for the
aforesaid purposes.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
dated 14.07.2021 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the second respondent is directed to reconsider the
petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2021 and keeping in mind the
observations set out above, conduct and conclude an inquiry as requested
for by the petitioner. Such inquiry shall be conducted after providing a
reasonable opportunity both to the petitioner and to respondents 4 to 6
herein. In view of the fact that the merits of the matter have not been
examined in this writ petition and because the second respondent has
been directed to hear the private respondents, the writ petition is being
disposed of without notice to the private respondents. The second
respondent is directed to conclude the inquiry within a period of three (3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021 is disposed of on these
terms without any order as to costs.
02.08.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
tsg
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road
Chennai - 600 028.
2.The District Registrar
O/o.The District Registrar,
Rajagambiram,
Y.Othakadai,
Madurai.
3.The Sub-Registrar
Theppakulam Sub-Registrar Office,
Rajagambiram,
Y.Othakadai,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.J.,
tsg
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.13246 of 2021
Dated :
02.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
