Madras High Court
Allwin vs The Inspector General Of ... on 22 September, 2022
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.9353 of 2014
in
M.P(MD) No.1 of 2014
Allwin ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
2. The District Registrar,
Registrar Office,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Thisayanvilai,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
4. Amalarani .... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
impugned order passed by the second respondent herein vide his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5574/M2/2013, dated 28.05.2014 and quash the
same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi
For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.V.Kannan
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the second respondent herein, under which, a Settlement Deed, dated
06.12.2005, registered as Document No.1831 of 2005 has been declared to
be forged document and a direction was issued for initiation of criminal
proceedings.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's
grandfather namely, one Rajendran @ Thangadurai has executed a
registered Settlement Deed in his favour on 06.12.2005, before the Sub-
Registrar Office, Thisayanvilai, in Document No.1831 of 2005. Thereafter,
in the year 2006, the said Rajendran @ Thangadurai had filed a suit in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
O.S.No.174 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,
Nanguneri for the relief of declaration that the said settlement deed is null
and void and also for declaration of title and consequential permanent
injunction and the said suit came to be dismissed, on 25.02.2008. Thereafter,
the said Rajendran @ Thangadurai had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.43 of
2008, on the file of the Sub Court, Valliyoor. The learned Sub-ordinate
Judge was pleased to confirm the judgment and dismissed the Appeal Suit,
on 28.04.2011. As against the same, the plaintiff/ Rajendran @ Thangadurai
had filed the Second Appeal in S.A(MD) No. 957 of 2011, before this Court
and the same is pending.
3. While the Second Appeal is pending, the fourth respondent herein
who claims to be the purchaser from the said Rajendran @ Thangadurai,
had lodged a complaint before the second respondent herein, contending
that the settlement deed in Document No.1831 of 2005 is a forged document
and the same has to be de-registered and proper proceedings should be
initiated as against the present writ petitioner. The second respondent herein
by his impugned order, dated 28.05.2014, has passed the order to the effect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
that the Settlement Deed in Document No.1831 of 2005 is a forged
document and he has also directed investigation to be conducted by the
police and he has directed for de-registration of the said document. The said
order is under challenge before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the civil
Court had refused to entertain the request of Rajendran @ Thangadurai for
declaring the said Settlement Deed, as null and void. Thereafter, the alleged
purchaser from the said Rajendran @ Thangadurai cannot approach the
second respondent herein for declaring the same document as null and void.
Hence, he contended that the second respondent has no jurisdiction
whatsoever to entertain the complaint, when the Second Appeal is pending
before this Court from the year 2011 onwards. Hence, he prayed for
allowing the Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent, namely, the fourth respondent herein had contended that the
said Rajendran @ Thangadurai had executed a registered sale deed in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
favour with regard to the portion of the property in the year 2005 itself.
Thereafter, he has chosen to execute a settlement deed in favour of the writ
petitioner, on 06.12.2005. Hence, the settlement deed has been executed
fraudulently in favour of the writ petitioner. He further contended that
Rajendran @ Thangadurai has appeared before the second respondent and
has specifically contended that he has never executed any such settlement
deed and such a document has been forged. Only on the basis of the forged
document, the writ petitioner claims the title. He further contended that the
document was referred to expert opinion and it was found that the thumb
impressions of Rajendran @ Thangadurai in the document do not tally with
the admitted thumb impressions. Only based upon said expert opinion and
the sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent herein, the order impugned
in the Writ Petition has been passed. Therefore, he prayed to sustain the
impugned order.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
official respondents had contended that the pendency of the Second Appeal
was not brought to the notice of the second respondent herein. That apart,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
the fourth respondent herein was not a party to the civil proceedings and
hence, without having knowledge about the pendency of the Second Appeal
before this Court, the complaint lodged by the fourth respondent has been
entertained by the second respondent and the present order has been passed.
That apart, the document has been referred to Government Forensic Expert.
Only based upon the report, the present order has been passed. Hence, he
requested the Court to sustain the order passed by the second respondent
herein.
7. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the second
respondent who passed the order appeared in person and he pleaded that he
was not aware of the pendency of the second appeal.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on
either side.
9. The prayer in O.S.No. 174 of 2006 clearly indicates that Rajendran
@ Thangadurai had filed a Suit not only for declaration of the Document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
No.1831 of 2005 as null and void, but he has also claimed declaration of
title and consequential injunction. The trial Court as well as the first
Appellate Court have rejected all the prayers of the said Rajendran @
Thangadurai including the prayer for declaration of title. The fourth
respondent is claiming title, only through the said Rajendran @
Thangadurai. Unless the title of Rajendran @ Thangadurai is upheld by this
Court in S.A.(MD)No. 957 of 2011, the title of the fourth respondent cannot
be decided.
10. Hence, in view of the above said facts, the order impugned in the
Writ Petition is set aside. The fourth respondent is granted liberty to get
herself impleaded in S.A.(MD)No.957 of 2011. The validity of the gift deed,
dated 06.12.2005, in Document No.1831 of 2005 is subject to the result of
S.A.(MD)No.957 of 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
11. With the above said observation, this Writ Petition stands allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22 .09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
2. The District Registrar,
Registrar Office,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Thisayanvilai,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.9353 of 2014
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
W.P.(MD)No.9353 of 2014
22.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
