Madras High Court
Bharathi Vadlamudi vs The District Registrar on 16 October, 2023
W.A.No.155 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.155 of 2023
Bharathi Vadlamudi .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The District Registrar
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram.
2. The Sub Registrar
Sriperumbudur Taluk
Sriperumbudur
Kanchipuram District.
3. R.Chandrasekaran
4. M/s. Mannur Properties Private Limited
No.13, Raghaveera Avenue
Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086.
5. M/s. Neela Avenues Private Limited
Plot No.32, Sagar Society Road
Road No.2, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad 500 034.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.155 of 2023
6. Chellan
7. R.Babu .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 07.11.2022 made in W.P.No.26169 of 2022.
For the Appellant : Mr.J.Pothiraj
For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
for Respondents 1 & 2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents 1 and 2.
2. The present appellant has filed a writ petition seeking
directions against the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate
action on the appellant's complaint dated 24.08.2022 by invoking
proceedings under Sections 68(2) and 69 of the Registration Act.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.155 of 2023
The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition giving liberty
to the appellant to ventilate her grievance in the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge ought to have considered that the registering authority
has powers under Sections 68(2) and 69 of the Registration Act to
make enquiry with regard to the nature of the transaction and if he
comes to the conclusion that the transaction is fraudulent, can
cancel the document.
4. According to the appellant, her land was sold by the power
of attorney holder of the original owner. Thereafter, the original
owner has sold the property to the other party. The said transaction
is a fraudulent transaction. Learned counsel relies upon the order of
the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2021 in W.P.No.15444 of 2021
and another order dated 26.08.2021 in W.P.No.16150 of 2019.
5. The ground on which the appellant seeks transaction to be
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.155 of 2023
set aside and/or the documents to be de-registered is fraud by the
original owner.
6. Fraud will have to be specifically proved. Evidence will have
to be led to prove the fraud and thereby the ingredients of Section
17 of the Contract Act and Section 55 of the Transfer Property Act
will have to be satisfied. Even in a complaint, where the transaction
is sought to be declared as void on the ground of fraud, specific
pleading of fraud is required to be incorporated and evidence is also
required to be led. The enquiry before the registering authority
would be a summary enquiry.
7. In the light of that, we do not find any error committed by
the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order.
8. In W.P.No.15444 of 2021, the learned Single Judge
observing that since the matter is pending before the first
respondent therein and that the writ petitioner had also made a
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.155 of 2023
complaint to the Inspector General of Registration, directed the first
respondent therein to decide the writ petitioner's complaint.
9. In W.P.No.16150 of 2019, learned Government Advocate
had made a statement that under communication to the District
Registrar, the Head of the Additional Inspector General of
Registration directed to take action. So also, there was a civil suit
filed by the husband of the writ petitioner for partition, declaration
and other reliefs and a memo of compromise was executed amongst
them. The learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the order in view
of the statement made by learned Government Advocate that the
Additional Inspector General of Registration has already directed the
second respondent therein to take action.
10. In the present case, there are various transactions
entered into even after the initial sale transaction by the power of
attorney holder and the original owner. The matter would be more
effectively decided by the civil Court. The view taken by the learned
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.155 of 2023
Single Judge is a plausible view.
11. In view of that, the appeal stands disposed of. There will
be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
16.10.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
To
1. The District Registrar
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram.
2. The Sub Registrar
Sriperumbudur Taluk
Sriperumbudur
Kanchipuram District.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.155 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(kpl)
W.A.No.155 of 2023
16.10.2023
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
