Madras High Court
R.Krishnan vs Inspector General Of Registration on 23 November, 2023
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
W.P.No.33096 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
W.P.No.33096 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.32780 of 2023
R.Krishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Inspector General of Registration,
O/o Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Chennai - North),
Office of the District Registrar (Chennai - North)
Chennai - 600 014.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Thiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600 019.
4. Janarthanam
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the third respondent to remove the
entries made pursuant to the second respondent's impugned order dated
24.08.2023 pertaining to the property situated at Tiruvallore District, Ponneri
Taluk, Vazhuthikaimedu Village bearing Survey No.190/1A and 190/1A1
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33096 of 2023
(Patta No.55) to an extent of 1 acre 03 cents within the Registration District
of Chennai - North and Sub- Registration District of Thiruvottiyur and also
directing the third respondent not to make any further entries till the disposal
of the appeal dated 14.09.2023 pending on the file of the first respondent.
For petitioner : Mr.B.Gurunathan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing
the third respondent to remove the entries made pursuant to the second
respondent's order dated 24.08.2023 pertaining to the property situated at
Tiruvallore District, Ponneri Taluk, Vazhuthikaimedu Village bearing Survey
No.190/1A and 190/1A1 (Patta No.55) to an extent of 1 acre 03 cents within
the Registration District of Chennai - North and Sub- Registration District of
Thiruvottiyur and also, directing the third respondent not to make any further
entries till the disposal of the appeal dated 14.09.2023 pending on the file of
the first respondent.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Survey No.190/1A and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
190/1A1 (Patta No.55) to an extent of 1 acre 03 cents, having purchased the
same for a valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated
20.02.2014 vide document bearing No.1134 of 2014; originally, the said
property was purchased from one Sankara Naidu by a registered settlement
deed dated 06.11.2012 bearing document No.8146/2012.; the fourth
respondent had lodged a complaint on 10.05.2023 before the second
respondent to cancel the settlement deed dated 06.11.2012 and sale deed
dated 20.02.2014 executed in favour of the petitioner; subsequently, the
petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in
O.S.No.160 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ponneri, which is still pending; in the meanwhile, the second
respondent sent an enquiry notice dated 27.06.2023 and passed an order
pursuant to Section 77-A of the Registration Act and cancelled both the
settlement deed dated 06.11.2012 and sale deed dated 20.02.2014 alleging
that both of them are forged documents. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent under Section 77-B
of the Registration Act which is now pending disposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that subsequent to cancellation of the documents, the second respondent,
under Section 77-A ibid, made correction in the relevant records stating that
the said settlement deed dated 06.11.2012 and sale deed dated 20.02.2014
are forged documents.
4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the second respondent cannot decide that the documents are forged or
otherwise fabricated documents and emphasis is made on paragraph 9 of a
Single Bench judgment of this Court in Basha Zathi vs The District Registrar
and others, wherein it is held as follows:
" 9.Therefore, necessarily, the Court has to
form an opinion that in respect of the documents falling
under Section 22 B of the Act, if sought to be cancelled,
then the Registrar is empowered to cancel the documents
under Section 77A of the Act. In respect of other
documents registered prior to the amendment, one has to
understand that those documents are to be dealt in
accordance with law prevailing at the time of registration
either by approaching the Civil Court of law or otherwise.
When all those documents registered to Section 77A of the
Act, then this Court is afraid that an anomalous situation
would be created by approaching the District Registrar
for the purpose of adjudication of disputed issues with
reference to those documents registered several years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
back. The amendment effected from 16.08.2022 has not
intended to do so nor the provision expressly provides any
such retrospective application. Prior to amendment,
Section 22A and Section 22B was not in force. Thus,
Section 77A cannot have retrospective effect. In other
words, Section 77A must be read in conjunction with
Section 22A and Section 22B of the Act. Insertion of all
these three Sections are to be understood holistically to
avoid any in orderliness."
Based on the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for
removal of the entries made by the third respondent pursuant to the direction
given by the second respondent.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the
issue in respect of Section 77A of the Registration Act, is pending before the
appropriate Bench.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the submissions made by both sides, it is clear that
the petitioner has taken a plea that the second respondent has no jurisdiction
and authority to decide the genuineness or otherwise of the documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner should have taken
steps to approach the Civil Court once the second respondent passed an order
under Section 77A ibid, in respect of the issue is whether the settlement deed
and the sale deed are forged ones. Be it noted, the petitioner has already
subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the first respondent under Section
77B, ibid.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
is inclined to consider the relief sought by the petitioner in respect of
cancellation of the documents and corrections made in the relevant records
basing on the directions given by the second respondent under Section 77A,
ibid. Accordingly, this Court further directs the first respondent to consider
the petitioner's appeal under Section 77B, ibid and dispose of the same as
quickly as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading
this order. Connected W.M.P is closed. No costs.
23.11.2023
vca
Index : Yes/No
Citation : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR. D.NAGARJUN,J.
vca
To:
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Chennai - North),
Office of the District Registrar (Chennai - North)
Chennai - 600 014.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Thiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600 019.
and
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
