Madras High Court
Archana Reddy vs S.Sangeetha on 3 February, 2022
W.A.No.191 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.191 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.1351 of 2022
Archana Reddy .. Appellant
Vs
1.S.Sangeetha
2.Deputy Inspector General,
South Zone, Department of Registration,
Chennai.
3.District Registrar (Admin),
Chennai.
4.Sub Registrar – Tambaram,
Sub Registrar Office,
Tambaram. .. Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 12.01.2022 made in W.P.No.19204 of 2021.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.V.Vijay Narayan,
Sr. Counsel
for Mr.Rahul M.Shankhar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ayyathurai,
Sr. Counsel
for Mr.M.Velmurugan for R1
Mr.P.Sathish,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 12.01.2022
recorded on W.P. No.19204 of 2021. This appeal is by the fourth
respondent.
2.1 Mr.V.Vijay Narayan, learned senior advocate for the
appellant has submitted that the interference by learned single Judge
in the order impugned in the writ petition dated 04.08.2021 was
illegal and unsustainable on more than one grounds. It is noted that
the learned senior advocate has taken this Court extensively through
the pleadings (including separate typed set), vis-a-vis the arguments
reflected in the impugned order, which we have considered. According
to him, the finding in the impugned order pertaining to condonation of
delay by the State Authorities is erroneous. Further on the face of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
forgery on the part of the mother of the writ petitioner, no useful
purpose could have been served by affording any opportunity, which
would have been an empty formality. According to him, so many
disputed questions of fact were involved in the matter and therefore
the only option left with the original writ petitioner was to approach
the civil Court where those questions should not have been gone into.
It is submitted that those questions could not have been gone into by
learned single Judge in exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that the impugned order needs
to be interfered with.
2.2 It is noted that, learned senior advocate for the appellant
has also compared various documents on record to contend that, even
the reference to forensic laboratory was not required to come to
conclusion that, fraud was committed by the mother of the writ
petitioner and in any case forensic opinion was asked for and was on
record with the State Authorities, and based on that opinion, the
original first respondent had passed the order which was in no way
illegal and therefore that ought not to have been interfered with. It is
submitted that this appeal be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
3. Mr.V.Ayyathurai, learned senior advocate for the first
respondent/ original writ petitioner has also addressed the Court at
length. He has submitted that the order passed by the original first
respondent was unsustainable in procedure so also on merits and
therefore the learned single Judge has rightly interfered in the said
order by setting aside it and therefore no interference be made by this
Court. It is noted that the learned senior advocate for the contesting
respondent i.e. original writ petitioner has also taken this Court
extensively through the material on record to contend that no
interference be made by this Court and this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned senior advocates for the contesting
parties i.e. appellant and the original writ petitioner, this Court finds
as under:-
4.1 The matrimonial dispute resulted in family dispute which
in turn percolated as property dispute, after the death of the
concerned persons. Instead of civil court, state functionaries
attempted to intervene which resulted in successful writ petition and
in turn this writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
4.2 Mr.K.N.Reddy and Mr.K.K.Reddy were two brothers.
Mr.K.N.Reddy was in Indian Navy and after his retirement in Merchant
Navy. He had matrimonial dispute with his wife. His family – wife and
children did not stay with him during his life time. Said K.N.Reddy
used to stay with his brother's family i.e., Mr.K.K.Reddy's family.
During his life time, he had executed a power of attorney in favour of
wife of his brother – Sarala Reddy on 12.09.1997. It was a registered
document. Subsequently sale deed was executed for consideration,
which was also a registered document no. 817 of 2005 dated
08.02.2005.
4.3 Said K.N.Reddy died on 10.09.2017. After his death (i.e.
of K.N.Reddy), his daughter Archana Reddy filed complaint with the
District Registrar complaining that the above referred documents were
forged. District Registrar did not accept the said complaint and vide
order dated 26.07.2018, asked the parties including the complainant
Archana Reddy (i.e daughter of K.N.Reddy) to approach the civil Court
for appropriate relief in respect to title over the property in question.
4.4 The said order dated 26.07.2018 was challenged by
Archana Reddy on 27.01.2021 before the Inspector General of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
Registration. An application for condonation of delay was also filed on
28.01.2021. The Inspector General of Registration, assigned the
inquiry to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration.
4.5 There was no order condoning delay. Inquiry was
conducted.
4.6 Sarla Reddy, Wife of K.K.Reddy died on 25.04.2021.
4.7 On 04.08.2021, an order was passed by the Deputy
Inspector General of Registration relevant of which reads as under:-
“Thus from the above findings and the various
other submissions of the appellant alleging
impersonation of her Father Tr.K.N.Reddy, it is
hereby concluded beyond doubt that the said Sale
and Will document have been registered
impersonating Tr.K.N.Reddy and it is ordered
accordingly, allowing the appeal.
Hence in accordance with Inspector General
of Registration Circular No.41530/U1/2017
dt.31.07.2018, the Sub Registrar Tambaram, is
hereby ordered:
(1) To file Police complaints against the fraudsters
(Claimants and witnesses) of both the documents
viz., Sale Document No.817/2005 and Will
Document No.56/2005.
(2) To add a Note in the Index – II of the Sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
Document No. 817/2005, as detailed below, so
that such a Note gets reflected in the
Encumbrance certificate of the property
concerned.
“Note : As per DIG Chennai order
No.430/B1/2021 Dated 02.08.2021 this document
has been found to be fraudulently registered by
impersonating the executant K.N.Reddy.”
(3) To add the above note in a separate white
paper signed by the Registering officer and to be
linked to the main documents, viz. No.817/Book
I/2005 and No.56/Book 3/2005.
(4) The said Sale document No.817/Book I/2005
and Will document No.56/Book 3/2005 shall not
be acted upon as a parent document for any
further registrations, since the same have been
found to be fraudulently registered.
(5) K.N.Reddy by whom the said Sale and Will
document purported to have been executed is no
more and hence his genuine legal heirs shall be
allowed to proceed with any further registration
irrespective of the entry in the Encumbrance
Certificate of Document No.4/2018 relating to the
Mortgage by way of Deposit of Title Deeds, since
the same has been executed by the Claimant of
the fraudulent sale document, which is also not
valid in the eye of law.”
5. The above order dated 04.08.2021 is addressed to two
persons viz., original complainant i.e., Archana Reddy and also to her
aunty i.e., Mrs.Sarala Reddy, who had already died on 25.04.2021.
The said order dated 04.08.2021 was challenged by the daughter of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
Sarala Reddy – S.Sangeetha by filing W.P.No.19204 of 2021, joining
the original complainant i.e. Archana Reddy as the fourth respondent.
Writ petition is allowed vide order dated 12.01.2022 holding the
impugned order unsustainable on various counts. The order of learned
Single Judge dated 12.01.2022 is challenged by the fourth respondent
- daughter of K.N.Reddy by filing this appeal.
6. On conjoint consideration of the above we find that, the
argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellant that so many
disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter itself would dis-
entitle her from getting any relief in this appeal. The appellant who
was complainant before the State Authorities claims title over
property, once owned by her father, after his death, on the ground
that forgery was committed by her aunty with her father before
decades. This could not have been adjudicated by the any officer not
even the Inspector General of Registration. Civil Court was the only
forum, which could have adjudicated this, if otherwise permissible,
keeping in view the aspect of limitation, since registered documents
were questioned. The District Registrar had already held so. There
was no reason for the higher authorities to interfere in that order, that
too without condoning delay, if it was otherwise permissible to do so.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
And if at all it was permissible, in the facts of the case if it was
otherwise found to be just and proper to do so. Here nothing was
done.
7. Further the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General
of Registration was against a dead person. It would not bind her legal
heirs.
8. The order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration was on the basis of some material which was used
behind back of Sarala Reddy to deprive her of the properties, over
which she had title through registered sale deed and also patta duly
granted by the State.
9. The enthusiasm on the part of the State Authorities as
reflected in the order dated 04.08.2021, if not tainted with other
demerits was at least unsustainable on law being arbitrary and illegal.
The order of learned Single Judge setting aside that order is perfectly
justified and no other view could have been taken. We not only refuse
to interfere in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge at
the hands of this appellant, we confirm the said order holding that no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
other view could have been taken. We also note that learned Single
Judge has already reserved liberty to the present appellant to move
the Civil Court on satisfying the limitation. Nothing beyond this could
have been done.
10. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J)
03.02.2022
Index:Yes
mmi/5
To
1.Deputy Inspector General,
South Zone, Department of Registration,
Chennai.
2.District Registrar (Admin),
Chennai.
3.Sub Registrar – Tambaram,
Sub Registrar Office,
Tambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.191 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
W.A.No.191 of 2022
03.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
