Madras High Court
K.J.Sumathy vs The District Registrar on 2 November, 2021
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.11.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.12915 of 2020 and 31527 of 2018
1.K.J.Sumathy
W/o.Late K.S.Jagannathan
2.S.J.Viswanathan
S/o.Late K.S.Jagannathan
3.J.Nithyasree
D/o.Late K.S.Jagannathan .. Petitioners
(P1 to P3, legal heirs, are substituted in
the place of the deceased petitioner.
Amended as per order in W.M.P.No.14658/21
dated 05.10.2021)
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Dharmapuri Registration District,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Dharmapuri (West),
Dharmapuri District.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
3.Nagaraj
S/o.Narayanan
4.R.Rajendran
S/o.Rajasekaran .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing first respondent to cancel
the sale deed dated 06.04.2017 registered as Doc.No.1075 of 2017, which
was registered in favour of the fourth respondent after conducting the
enquiry in respect of land measuring 8-16 Acres in S.No.867/2 and
S.No.867/2B of Adhiyamankottai Village, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri
District.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Government Advocate [R1 & R2]
Mr.R.Rajaramani [R3]
Mr.M.Gnanasekar [R4]
*****
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J]
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus directing first respondent to cancel the sale deed dated
02.05.2017 registered as Doc.No.1075 of 2017, which was registered in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
favour of the fourth respondent after conducting enquiry in respect of land
measuring 8-16 Acres in S.No.867/2 and S.No.867/2B of Adhiyamankottai
Village, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
2. The short facts that are required for deciding this Writ Petition are
as under:
2.1. One K.S.Jagannathan was the owner of a land measuring 25 acres
in Survey No.867/2, Adhiyamankottai village, Dharmapuri District. One
Nagaraj [A1], a local politician, entered into a loan agreement dated
05.04.2004 with one Rajendran [A2], under which, Nagaraj [A1] made it
appear as if he has received a loan around Rs.4,00,000/- for which, he has
given the above said property of K.S.Jagannathan as security. The loan
agreement dated 05.04.2004 contained an arbitration clause.
2.2. Thereafter, it appears that Nagaraj [A1] and Rajendran [A2], in
collusion, contrived a dispute, appointed one Mr.K.Rajaram [A4], Advocate,
as an arbitrator, based on which, K.Rajaram [A4] passed an award dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
31.10.2014 in a fake arbitration proceedings viz., AR.O.P.No.36 of 2014
directing execution of a sale deed in respect of 8 acres and 16 cents of
K.S.Jagannathan's property in favour of Rajendran [A2].
2.3. While so, Rajendran [A2], who had obtained the fake arbitration
award, presented the arbitration award in the District Court, Dharmapuri, for
execution against Nagaraj [A1] in R.E.P.No.36 of 2016, in which
K.S.Jagannathan was not shown as a party. Nagaraj [A1] remained ex parte
in R.E.P.No.36 of 2016 and an ex parte order was passed by the District
Judge, Dharmapuri, directing the execution of a sale deed in favour of
Rajendran [A2] in respect of K.S.Jagannathan's property. Accordingly, the
impugned sale deed dated 02.05.2017 in Doc.No.1075 of 2017 came to be
registered as if the property has been sold to Rajendran [A2]. Challenging
the registration of the sale deed dated 02.05.2017 in Doc.No.1075 of 2017,
K.S.Jagannathan has filed the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
2.4. On coming to know about all this, K.S.Jagannathan approached
the police and lodged a complaint, based on which, a case in DCB
P.S.Crime No.1 of 2018 was registered and investigation was taken over.
The police arrested Nagaraj [A1], Rajendran [A2] and Advocate Rajaram
[A4] etc.
2.5. K.S.Jagannathan also filed a suit in O.S.No.71 of 2010 before the
Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, against Nagaraj [A1] and six other
rival claimants for a declaration that he (K.S.Jagannathan) is the absolute
owner of the property measuring 25 acres of land in Survey No.867/2,
Adhiyamankottai village, Dharmapuri District, which was the subject matter
of the fake arbitration proceedings. Nagaraj [A1] filed a counter suit in
O.S.No.12 of 2015 for a bare injunction restraining K.S.Jagannathan and his
relatives from interfering with his alleged possession of the property. Both
suits were contested by the defendants therein. After contest, the Additional
District Court, Dharmapuri, by judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016,
allowed the suit filed by K.S.Jagannathan and gave a declaration and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
permanent injunction as sought for by him in respect of the property
covered by the fake arbitration award and dismissed the suit filed by
Nagaraj [A1]. Thereafter, K.S.Jagannathan presented the decree in
O.S.No.71 of 2010 before the Sub-Registrar, Dharmapuri West and had it
registered as Document No.145/2017 on 25.01.2017.
3. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, K.S.Jagannathan died on
04.10.2020 and his legal heirs have been impleaded as petitioners. Nagaraj
[A1] has filed a counter affidavit dated 25.07.2019 in this Writ Petition
reiterating that he had not entered into any fake arbitration agreement and
that the sale deed is a valid document. Rajendran (A2/fourth respondent)
has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.07.2019 wherein he has stated that he
did not know that Nagaraj [A1] was not the owner of the property and that
he had fallen into a trap laid by Nagaraj [A1].
4. Learned counsel for Rajendran [A2/fourth respondent]
unequivocally stated that Rajendran (fourth respondent) is ready and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
willing to re-convey the property to the heirs of K.S.Jagannathan
unconditionally. This submission is recorded.
5. On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in this case, we find that a
wholesale fraud has been committed in respect of K.S.Jagannathan's
property. Nagaraj [A1] and Rajendran [A2] have entered into a loan
agreement, under which, they agreed to appoint an arbitrator for resolving
any dispute arising under that. Therefore, they have appointed K.Rajaram
[A4], Advocate, as the Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings appears to
have been conducted by A.R.Chandran [A8], who was running an
Arbitration Centre in the name of 'Asia - Pacific Arbitration Centre' with
Government of India Emblem in Dharmapuri District, where Paneerselvam
[A7] acted as bailiff. A.R.Chandran [A8] had with him two other accused,
Kumar [A9] and Raja [A11], as his personal gunmen and they were given
air gun to give credibility to their work. The police arrested A.R.Chandran
[A8], Kumar [A9] and Raja [A11]. Thus, for perpetrating such huge frauds,
these accused have established a make believe Court room in Dharmapuri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
District with Government of India emblem and other paraphernalia. In that
film shooting set Court room, Rajaram [A4], Advocate, has sat as an
arbitrator on the petition filed by Nagaraj [A1] and Rajendran [A2] and has
passed an award on a totally stranger's [K.S.Jagannathan's] properties.
6. What surprises us is that, the Registrar, while registering the sale
deed on 02.05.2017, has failed to even check the fact that K.S.Jagannathan
has registered the decree in respect of the very same property vide document
No.145/2017 on 25.01.2017. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the
sale deed document No.1075 of 2017 dated 02.05.2017 is ab initio void and
is a fraudulent transaction.
7. In our opinion, when fraud is writ large in these transactions, the
true owner of the property cannot be made to run from pillar to post.
Extraordinary cases require extraordinary remedies.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
8. We are fortified by the following observations of the Supreme
Court in Meghmala and others v. G.Narasimha Reddy and others1:
'33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an
egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of
courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a
design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The
expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the
person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. [Vide
Vimal (Dr.) v. Delhi Admn. (AIR 1963 SC 1572), Indian Bank v.
Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. (1996 (5) SCC 550), State of A.P. v.
T.Suryachandra Rao (2005 (6) SCC 149), K.D.Sharma v. SAIL (2008
(12) SCC 481) and Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad
Dahir (2008 (13) SCC 170].
34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A
collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the
others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab
initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given
case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all
equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be
perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine
including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in
its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.
Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud
on the court. (Vide S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994 (1)
SCC 1), Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996
(3) SCC 310), Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003 (8) SCC
319), Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002 (1) SCC 100), Ram Preeti
Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School & Intermediate Education (2003
(8) SCC 311) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. (2004 (3) SCC
1).
1 (2010) 8 SCC 383
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
35. In Kinch v. Walcott (1929 AC 482), it has been held that:
"... mere constructive fraud is not, at all events after
long delay, sufficient but such a judgment will not be set
aside upon mere proof that the judgment was obtained by
perjury".
Thus, the detection/discovery of constructive fraud at a much belated
stage may not be sufficient to set aside the judgment procured by
perjury.
36. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial
proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by
playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the
questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory
bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of
any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every
court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by
fraud as the order so obtained is non est.'
9. We consider this as one of the extraordinary cases inasmuch as an
arbitration centre has been established in Dharmapuri to make ordinary
people to believe that it is a regular Court and in that premises, an award has
been passed in respect of the property of K.S.Jagannathan in an alleged
money dispute between Nagaraj [A1] and Rajendran [A2].
For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and the sale
deed dated 02.05.2017 registered as Doc.No.1075 of 2017 on the file of Sub
Registrar, Dharmapuri (West), stands quashed. We direct the Sub-Registrar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
[R2] to cancel the sale deed dated 02.05.2017 registered as Doc.No.1075 of
2017 on the file of Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri (West) and also make
appropriate entries in the encumbrance register so that the cancellation
towards sale deed appears therein. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[P.N.P., J] [S.S.Y., J]
02.11.2021
Index: Yes/No
gm
To
1.The District Registrar,
Dharmapuri Registration District,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Dharmapuri (West),
Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
P.N.PRAKASH, J
and
S.SRIMATHY, J
gm
Writ Petition No.27120 of 2018
02.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
