Madras High Court
K.Latha vs Union Territory Of Puducherry on 14 June, 2023
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.2178, 2179 & 2180 of 2023
1. K.Latha
2. Malar
3. Pazhaniandi ... Petitioners
Vs
1. Union Territory of Puducherry,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2. District Registrar,
Puducherry.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Oulgaret,
Puducherry.
4. Nadarassin Ramesh. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order
of the second respondent in Proceeding No.4225/P-
85/DRP/2022/1221/08 dated 03.11.2022 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/16
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Ravichander
For Respondents :
For R1 to R3 : Dr.B.Ramaswamy
Additional Government Pleader
(Puducherry)
For R4 : Mr.K.Sasindran
ORDER
The order dated 03.11.2022, passed by the District Registrar,
Puducherry, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The preliminary objections raised by the respondents are that the
order impugned is an appealable order and the petitioner has not
exhausted the appellate remedy contemplated and therefore this writ
petition is to be rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly
contended that the District Registrar, Puducherry, has no jurisdiction to
declare the registered document as fraudulent or cancel the document.
The powers exercised by the District Registrar, Puducherry, is without
jurisdiction and therefore, the writ petition is entertainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners state that he is
mainly on the ground of jurisdiction, this Court is inclined to go into the
grounds raised in this regard.
5. It is contended that the sale deed was registered vide Document
No.3642 of 2007 dated 21.06.2007, Power of Attorney in Document
No.207 of 2012 dated 19.04.2012 and sale deed in Document No.5593 of
2012 dated 13.12.2012
6. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted a
complaint to the District Registrar to declare the documents registered at
the instance of the petitioners as fraudulent. Based on the complaint, the
District Registrar, Puducherry, conducted an enquiry by affording an
opportunity to the parties and declared that the above documents
registered are fraudulently registered deeds. However, there is no specific
order cancelling the sale deeds registered by the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
7. Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Additional Government Pleader
(Puducherry) appearing on behalf of the Government of Puducherry,
made a submission that the District Registrar, Puducherry, has not
cancelled the documents registered by the writ petitioners instead he
recorded that the documents registered are fraudulently registered deeds.
Therefore, the writ petition is to be rejected.
8. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent also argued on the
same line and has stated that the District Registrar, Puducherry, has
adjudicated the issues on merits and considered the pleadings of the
parties and declared that the registered documents as fraudulently
registered deeds and thus, there is no infirmity.
9. The powers of the Registering Authority under the provisions of
the Registration Act, 1908, to cancel the registered documents are well
enumerated by the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, in the case of Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767. The Relevant portion of
said Judgment reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
“34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration)
stands discharged, once the documents is registered
(see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan) Section
17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which
require compulsory registration. Extinguishment
deed is one such document referred to in Section 17
(1) (b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with
documents, registration whereof is optional. Section
20 of the Act deals with documents containing
interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations.
Section 21 provides for description of property and
maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the
description of houses and land by reference to
government maps and surveys. There is no express
provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the
Registrar to recall such registration. The fact
whether the document was properly presented for
registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar
after its registration. The power to cancel the
registration is a substantive matter. In absence of
any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to
assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would
be competent to cancel the registration of the
documents in question. Similarly, the power of the
Inspector General is limited to do superintendence
of Registration Offices and make rules in that
behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to
cancel the registration of any document which has
already been registered.”
10. Relying on the above Judgement, the learned counsel for the
petitioners reiterated that the District Registrar erroneously exercised
jurisdiction by entertaining the complaint and adjudicated the issues on
merits. In paragraph 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
“36. If the document is required to be compulsorily
registered, but while doing so some irregularity
creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a
fraudulent action of the State Authority. Non-
presence of the other party to the extinguishment
deed presented by the Society before the Registering
Officer by no standard can be said to be a
fraudulent action per se. The fact whether that was
done deceitfully to cause loss and harm to the other
party to the deed, is a question of fact which must be
pleaded and proved by the party making such
allegation. That fact cannot be presumed. Suffice it
to observe that since the provisions in the 1908 Act
enables the Registering Officer to register the
documents presented for registration by one party
and execution thereof to be admitted or denied by
the other party thereafter, it is unfathomable as to
how the registration of the document by following
procedure specified in the 1908 Act can be said to
be fraudulent. As aforementioned, some irregularity
in the procedure committed during the registration
process would not lead to a fraudulent execution
and registration of the document, but a case of mere
irregularity. In either case, the party aggrieved by
such registration of document is free to challenge its
validity before the Civil Court.”
Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
11. Let us examine the reason given by the District Registrar,
Puducherry, in the impugned order for declaring the registered
documents as fraudulent deeds.
12. It is stated that the District Registrar initiated proceedings
based on the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration,
Puducherry dated 05.08.2021, only in connection with the execution of
fraudulent registration of documents, as per the out come of the direction
of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.No.10177 of 2021
dated 17.06.2021.
13. Admittedly, there is no power provided under the Registration
Act, 1908, for the District Registrar to cancel the document unlike Tamil
Nadu amendment.
14. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader
(Puducherry) states that an enquiry has been undertaken pursuant to the
rules in force. Be that as it may be, the District Registrar has analyzed
the facts by considering the documents filed by the parties. It is recorded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
that the 1st opposite party before the District Registrar admitted the fact
regarding the creation of fraudulent documents in favour of the 2 nd
opposite party namely Tmt.Kamala Kumari Meera @ Meera for an extent
of 1 Are and 11 Centaire, which he had sold the whole extent in proper,
but Thiru.Sathiyamurthy, has no right or authority to execute a sale deed
vide Document No.3642 of 2007 dated 21.06.2007, in favour of
Tmt.Malar W/o.Thiruvengadam for 3,600 Sq.ft, which is nothing but a
fraudulent registration. Based on such wrong sale deed subsequent sale
deed in Document No.5593 of 2012 dated 13.12.2012, which also
registered in the Sub-Registry, Oulgaret, Puducherry, also remains as a
fraudulent registration.
15. Perusal of the findings made by the District Registrar would
reveal that he had gone into the details of the documents presented
between the parties and considered the rights of the parties to execute
documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
16. The constitutional Courts have repeatedly held that the
registering authority is not empowered to go into the civil rights of the
parties. The competent Civil Court of law alone is empowered to declare
the civil rights and the registering authority has no jurisdiction or
authority to adjudicate the disputed facts regarding the civil rights of the
parties in the present case.
17. The District Registrar has gone into the allegations set out in
the complaint regarding the rights of the parties. The findings amplify
that Thiru.Sathiyamurthy S/o. Purushothaman has no right or authority to
execute subsequent sale deed referring the power deed.
18. Whether the said Thiru.Sathiyamurthy S/o. Purushothaman has
right and authority to execute a subsequent sale deed or not is the issue
which is to be determined by the competent Civil Court of Law.
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in confirming the opinion that the
District Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction and has gone into the
Civil Rights of the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
19. Fraud or impersonation in the context of the Registration Act,
1908, is distinguishable. For fraud in the common parlance have wider
connotation and meaning and the said general meaning of “fraud” cannot
be adopted in respect of the documents registered under the Registration
Act.
20. In the event of fraud being committed by any person, threefold
actions are provided for an aggrieved person. Firstly, an aggrieved
person may file a complaint to prosecute the persons under the Criminal
Law. Secondly, such person is entitled to approach the Civil Court for
establishing his civil rights.
21. Thirdly, he can approach the competent authorities for
cancelling the registered documents. As far as the administrative action
under the provisions of the Registration Act is concerned, the definition
of fraud cannot be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of civil
disputes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
22. Only in the event of fraud apparent on record, the registering
authority can interfere but not otherwise. Therefore, the registering
authority is not empowered to usurp the power of the Civil Court. Such
exercise of powers act akin to the powers of the Civil Court. Even if
there is any iota of doubt regarding civil rights, the parties are to be
relegated to the Civil Court of Law for the purpose of establishing their
rights.
23. In the present case, the question arises by declaring a registered
document as fraudulently registered deeds, what would be the
consequence.
24. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)
appearing on behalf of the Government of Puducherry states that the
documents were not cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner has not
established any grievances. However, the impugned order declares that
the documents registered are fraudulently registered deeds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
25. Such declaration has got civil consequences, as the parties are
benefited from and out of such declaration and may claim certain rights
in respect of the properties. Therefore, the power exercised by the
Registering Authority for issuing such declaration is to be considered by
this Court.
26. When the District Registrar has no power to adjudicate, the
civil rights of the parties, he ought not to have issued any such
declaration declaring the registered document as fraudulently registered
deeds. Such a power has been conferred only on the Civil Court and such
declarations cannot be given based on summary proceedings.
27. In the event of declaring the document as fraudulent by the
District Registrar, merely by conducting summary proceedings, it would
infringe the civil rights of the parties regarding the properties and more
so right to property is of constitutional right and Article 300 A of the
Constitution of India gets violated, since such right can be taken away
only by the authority of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
28. The manner in which the allegation in the complaints are
enquired into would apparently show that the District Registrar has
exceeded his jurisdiction beyond the scope of the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908, Since adjudication of the case on merits is
impermissible.
29. In view of the facts and circumstances, the order impugned is
without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order issued by the District
Registrar in proceeding No.4225/P-85/DRP/2022/1221/108 dated
03.11.2022 is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
30. With regard to establishing their rights, either of the parties is
at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court of law for the purpose of
getting such declaration as to whether the document is fraudulently
registered or not. Thus, the remedy lies before the Civil Court of Law and
quashing of the orders would not require the parties from establishing
their rights before the Civil Court of Law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
31. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.06.2023
Index : Yes/ No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
rgm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
To
1. The Chief Secretary,
Union Territory of Puducherry,
Government of Puducherry,
Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2. District Registrar,
Puducherry.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Oulgaret,
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
rgm
W.P.No.2092 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.2178, 2179 & 2180 of 2023
14.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
