Madras High Court
M.Syed Ali vs The Inspector General Of ... on 6 April, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
and W.M.P(MD).No.2639 of 2016
M.Syed Ali ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Pudukkottai Registration District,
Pudukkottai.
3.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.The Kulathur Sub Registrar at Keeranur,
Keeranur Post,
Pudukkottai District.
4.Gandhi
5.G.Latha ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to
accept the petitioner's cancellation of Power of Attorney Deed in respect of
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
Power of Attorney executed in favour of the fourth respondent in Document
No.144/Bh4/2002 dated 25.09.2002 within a stipulated time may be fixed
by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents :Mr.M.Prakash
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
No appearance
for R4
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to the third respondent to accept
the cancellation of power of attorney deed in respect of the power of
attorney executed in favour of the fourth respondent under
Document No.144/Bh4/2002.
2. The fourth and fifth respondents took an adjournment at the
hearing on 15.03.2023. Thereafter, they were not represented at the hearing
on 23.03.2023 and at today's hearing. Consequently, the matter is proceeded
with in the absence of the respondents 4 and 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had availed of a loan from the fourth respondent. At that juncture, a power
of attorney was executed in favour of the fourth respondent under
Document No.144/Bh4/2002. The petitioner asserts that the loan was duly
repaid. Upon such repayment, it is stated that the petitioner issued a notice
to the fourth respondent and communicated the intention to revoke the
power of attorney. In spite of receipt of such notice, it is stated that the
fourth respondent fraudulently executed a sale deed in favour of the fifth
respondent, who is his wife. The present writ petition is filed in these facts
and circumstances.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale deed
executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent is
fraudulent and the registration is liable to be cancelled. He places reliance
on the judgment of the District Munsif, Keeranur, in O.S.No.61 of 2014. He
points out that the said suit was filed by the fifth respondent herein against
the petitioner and one S.Mohammed Abdullah. By a detailed judgment, he
submits that the suit for permanent injunction seeking non-interference with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
the suit schedule property was dismissed. He also points out that the court
examined the validity of the sale deed and concluded that since the validity
of the sale deed was questioned, the plaintiff therein should have sued for a
declaration of title.
5. The position prevailing today is that by acting as the agent of
the petitioner, a sale deed dated 18.06.2008 bearing Document No.
3105/2018 was executed and registered by the fourth respondent in favour
of the fifth respondent. In these facts and circumstances, the request of the
petitioner to register the deed of cancellation of the power of attorney does
not advance the cause of the petitioner. The petitioner should initiate
appropriate proceedings either under Section 77A of the Registration Act,
1908 (the Registration Act) or by instituting a civil suit seeking cancellation
of the relevant sale deed. As regards proceedings under Section 77A of the
Registration Act, the question as to whether the said provision is
retrospective or retroactive or prospective is pending consideration before
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The outcome of the matter
pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court would have a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
bearing on the petitioner's request under Section 77A of the Act.
6. For reasons set out above, W.P(MD).No.3014 of 2016 is
disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional
Sub Registrar under Section 77A of the Registration Act or file a civil suit
before the jurisdictional civil court. It is made clear that no opinion has been
expressed on the merits of the matter. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected W.M.P(MD).No.2639 of 2016 is also closed.
06.04.2023
NCC :No
Internet :Yes
Index :No
ssb
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
2.The District Registrar,
Pudukkottai Registration District,
Pudukkottai.
3.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.The Kulathur Sub Registrar at Keeranur,
Keeranur Post,
Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
ssb
W.P.(MD)No.3014 of 2016
06.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
