Madras High Court

A.Sathishkumar vs The Sub-Registrar on 2 August, 2024

Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

                                                                                    W.P.No.2749 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 02.08.2024

                                                            CORAM:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

                                                  W.P.No.2749 of 2019
                                                         and
                                                 W.M.P.No.3014 of 2019
                  A.Sathishkumar                                               ...Petitioner

                                                             -Vs-

                  1.The Sub-Registrar,
                    Office of the Sub-Registrar,
                    Tiruvannamalai.

                  2.Tmt.Vasantha                                              ...Respondents

                  Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                  praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari,
                  calling for the records of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority in
                  Order in B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and the consequential order of the
                  2nd respondent dated 04.12.2018 cancelling the registered Power of Attorney
                  Doc.No.202/2004 dated 27.10.2004 issued in favour of the petitioner and
                  quash the same and pass such further orders.

                                    For Petitioner      :     M/s.S.Radha Goplaan
                                                              Senior Counsel

                                    For R1              :     Mr.P.Ananda Kumar
                                                              Government Advocate



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                  1/18
                                                                                        W.P.No.2749 of 2019

                                     For R2              :      Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
                                                                for Mr.V.Arul

                                                             ORDER

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling

for the records of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority in Order in

B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and the consequential order of the 2nd

respondent dated 04.12.2018, cancelling the registered Power of Attorney

Doc.No.202/2004 dated 27.10.2004 issued in favour of the petitioner and

quash the same.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the registered Power of Attorney was executed by the second respondent in

favour of the petitioner vide Doc.No.204/2004 dated 26.10.2004. Thereafter,

a complaint was given by the second respondent before the Chairman /

Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai,

to revoke the General Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of the

petitioner by the second respondent on 26.10.2004 vide Doc.No.202/2004

and sought legal action against the petitioner.

3. Learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to the order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

passed by the Chairman / Principal District Judge, District Legal Services

Authority, Tiruvannamalai, vide order in B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018, in

which he has come to the conclusion that when the signatures made in the

documents are viewed, it prima facie established the title of the 2nd

respondent and the signature found in the Power of Attorney is indifferent

from the signature of the 2nd respondent.

4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the above order passed

by the Chairman / Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority,

Tiruvannamalai, is without jurisdiction and he has no such power to

recommend the cancellation of the document to the first respondent, further

directing the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, to enquire

the complaint relating to the matter. It is further submitted that the Power of

Attorney was executed on 26.10.2004 and the same was cancelled after 14

years, i.e., 04.12.2018 vide order passed by the first respondent and the same

reads as follows:

@khtl;l rl;l gzpfs; Mizf;FG.

jpUtz;zhkiy Miz vz;/gp/807/18 ,d; go khtl;l Kjd;ik ePjpgjp mth;fs; gpwg;gpj;j Mizapd; go jpUtz;zhkiy 1 vz;/ ,iz rhh; gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l bghJ mjpfhu Mtzk; ,uj;J bra;J Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l epiyapy;

jpUtz;zhkiy 1 vz;/ ,iz rhh; gjpthsh;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

mYtyf 4 g[j;jf Mtz vz;/202/2004 ,uj;J bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ khtl;l Kjd;ik ePjpgjp mth;fspd; Miz ,izf;fg;gl;lJ/@

5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that no notice was issued

to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted by the Chairman / Principal

District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, before

passing the order dated 26.10.2018, which is in violation of principles of

natural justice.

6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in view of the Power

of Attorney executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2004, several

documents have been executed and he has also produced one Correction

Deed vide Doc.No.5961/2019 dated 17.06.2011.

7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent

dated 15.03.2019 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder for

better appreciation and understanding:

“7. With regard to Paras 7 & 8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent being a women is entitled to legal services as provided under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The chairman, District Legal Services Authority has entertained the complaint, examined

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the complaint with the records available and ordered the 1st respondent to receive the application of the complainant for cancellation of Power of Attorney and pass appropriate orders for cancellation of the same. When the Principal is always having right to cancel the Power of Attorney without the consent of the agent, the order of the chairman or the act of the 1st respondent could not be contrary to any law. It is absolutely not necessary to give any opportunity to hear the Petitioner regarding Cancellation of Power of Attorney by the grantor of Power of Attorney. However the cancellation will take effect only in accordance with law. If the Petitioner has suffered any loss, he is having alternative remedy before the appropriate Civil Court. Further the Chairman has only directed the Superintendent of Police to enquire the complaint of the 2nd respondent which is not in any way illegal.”

8. The counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second

respondent in the year 2019.

9. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the

General Power of Attorney in Doc.No.202/2004 dated 26.10.2004 was not

executed by the second respondent and she has no knowledge, acquaintance

whatsoever with the petitioner. The petitioner has dishonestly and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

fraudulently fabricated the false document by impersonating the second

respondent with the intention of grabbing the subject matter property.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that as a matter of fact ever

since the date of purchase of the property, the second respondent has not

executed or registered any document whatsoever pertaining to the said

property. Thereafter, the second respondent immediately lodged a complaint

with the District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, vide

R.No.1786/2018 dated 10.09.2018, seeking cancellation of the aforesaid

forged Power of Attorney Deed and appropriate criminal action as against the

petitioner for the serious offences committed by him.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the said complaint lodged

by the petitioner was taken on file as B.No.807/2018 and in the said

proceedings, notice was duly sent to the petitioner from the District Legal

Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, on 17.09.2018. However, the said notice

was returned un-served on 20.09.2018 with the endorsement "No such person

in the address". Subsequently, the District Legal Services Authority,

Tiruvannamalai had sought clarification from the 1st respondent herein as to

the course of action to be taken in view of documents fabricated by way of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

impersonation. In reply to the same, the Joint Sub Registrar-I,

Tiruvannamalai had issued a letter dated 22.11.2018, clarifying that if upon

enquiry by the Court, it is ordered that the said Power of Attorney Deed is

null and void in view of impersonation committed, appropriate relief shall be

rendered to the injured party.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that the Chairman, District

Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, had passed an order dated

26.10.2018 in B.No.807/2018, thereby directing the 1st respondent to receive

the petitioner's application for cancellation of the forged Power of Attorney

Deed dated 26.10.2004, registered as Document No.202/2004, on the file of

the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Tiruvannamalai, and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law and further directed the Superintendent of Police,

Tiruvannamalai, to enquire his complaint and initiate appropriate criminal

action in accordance with law.

13. Learned counsel for the second respondent drew the attention of

this Court to Sections 2(c), 10 and 12(c) of the Legal Services Authority Act,

1987 and he relied on the judgment of the First Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.2992 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022 (P.Sunil alias Sunil Prakash Vs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes

and Registration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009).

14. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

15. Having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit of the

1st respondent, wherein it is stated that the Principal is always having right to

cancel the Power of Attorney without the consent of the agent, the order of

the chairman or the act of the 1st respondent could not be contrary to any law.

16. In the case on hand, the second respondent has sought cancellation

of Power of Attorney only on the grounds of fraud, impersonation and

fabrication. Hence, the 1st respondent is not correct in saying that the order of

the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, is not

contrary to law.

17. At present, the issue to be decided in this writ petition is “whether

the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, has

got jurisdiction / power to entertain the complaint in regard to the

alleged forged document under Sections 2(c), 10 and 12(c) of the Legal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Services Authority Act, 1987”.

18. It is pertinent to extract Sections 2(c), 10 and 12(c) the Legal

Services Authority Act, 1987, which read as follows:

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(c) “legal service” includes the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceeding before any court or other authority or tribunal and the giving of advice on any legal matter;

10. Functions of the District Authority.— (1) It shall be the duty of every District Authority to perform such of the functions of the State Authority in the District as may be delegated to it from time to time by the State Authority.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the functions referred to in sub-section (1), the District Authority may perform all or any of the following functions, namely:— 1[(a) coordinate the activities of the Taluk Legal Services Committee and other legal services in the District;]

(b) organize Lok Adalats within the District; and

12. Criteria for giving legal services.—Every person https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person is—

a) According to Section 2(c) - “Legal Service” of the Act, the complaint

given by the second respondent does not fall within the ambit of the

Definition of 'legal service'. Hence, it cannot be entertained by the

Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai.

b) According to Section 10 - “Functions of the District Authority” of

the Act, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,

Tiruvannamalai, has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the

complaint of the petitioner.

c) Section 12(c) - “a woman or a child”.

The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the

second respondent is a woman and entitled to legal service according to the

above Section 12(c) of the Act. Hence, under this Act, she can approach and

give a complaint to the District Legal Service Authority.

19. This Court is not inclined to accept the above contention of the

learned counsel for the second respondent for the reason that since the

complainant does not come under the purview of the legal services and it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

is not relevant whether the complainant is a woman or not.

20. It is pertinent to extract the order passed by the Chairman, District

Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, vide B.No.807/2018 dated

26.10.2018 and the same is extracted hereunder:

“The petitioner herein namley, Vasantha, wife of Ganegamoorthy of Sorakulathur Village written a complaint to submit before the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. but she presented before this authority along with another petition addressed to this authoriry for seeking legal action against the person namely A.Satheesh Kumar who registered a deed of power of attorney before the Sub-Registrar of Tiruvannamalai by impersonation in respect of her property situated at Inamkariyendhal, Tiruvannamalai District. In her complaint, she specifically alleged that the said satheesh kumar signed in the deed of power of attorney and registered before the Sub-Registrar Office Tiruvannamalai as if she signed said property for sale, etc.. in the documents and gave power of attoney to him for the said property for sale, etc. Though the petitioner seeking criminal action against the said satheesh kumar, she wants to cancell the said power of attorney which was registered and she seeks direction to the said registering authority for cancellation. So this authority sent a notice to the Sub Registrar of Tiruvannamalai to know the possibilities for cancellation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Sub-Registrar of Tiruvannamalai appeared before this authority and given a written reply, in which he have stated that there is rule for cancellation of documents when the documents were registered by forging and by impersonation and advised petitioner to file any application for cancellation of the said power of attorney.

The submitted copies of the documents and the alleged power of attorney and the signature made in the documents are viewed and it prima facie established the title of the petitioner and the signature found in the power of attorney is indifferent from the signature of the petitioner, so this authority having consideration over the complaint of the petitioner and her intention to cancel the deed of power of attorney and also the reply of the Sub Registrar would decide to pass certain direction to the officials for redress the complaint of the petitioner.

In result, this authority ordered the Sub-Register of Tiruvannamalai to receive the application of the petitioner for cancelation of Power of attorney in document No. 202/2004, dated 27-10-2004 registered in his office in respect of the scheduled mentioned property in accordance with the permitted rules and pass appropriate orders for cancellation the said document. Further this authority directs the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai to enquire the complaint related matter and if it necessary initiates appropriate criminal action against the said Satheesh Kumar.” In the order passed by the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tiruvannamalai, vide proceedings B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018, it is

mentioned that the petitioner herein, namley, Vasantha, wife of

Ganegamoorthy of Sorakulathur Village, written a complaint to submit before

the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. but she presented before this

authority along with another petition addressed to this authoriry for seeking

legal action against the person, namely A.Satheesh Kumar. In the said order,

the finding is that in the submitted copies of the documents and the alleged

Power of Attorney, the signatures made in the documents, prima facie

establish the title of the second respondent and the signature found in the

Power of Attorney is indifferent from the signature of the second respondent.

In regard to this finding, this Court is unable to understand how the

District Legal Services Authority has come to the conclusion that it is a

forged signature. If at all there is any doubt regarding signature,

reference must be made to a Forensic Expert and in this case, no such

reference is made and the signatures were not examined by the Forensic

Expert. On this ground, the finding of the Chairman, District Legal

Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, is erroneous and untenable.

In the impugned order itself, it is mentioned that the written

complaint is to be submitted before the Superintendent of Police, but the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petitioner (second respondent herein) / complainant has given a

complaint addressed to the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,

Tiruvannamalai, which cannot be a ground or reason to entertain the

complaint when the Authority has no power or jurisdiction to entertain

the same under the Act.

21. The District Legal Services Authority, has no power to recommend

to the Sub-Registrar to cancel the Power of Attorney Deed executed and this

apart, directing the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, to

enquire the complaint relating to the matter and the same is also without

jurisdiction.

22. In view of the above discussion of relevant provisions under the

Legal Service Authority Act, 1987, the Chairman, District Legal Services

Authority, has no jurisdiction or power to entertain the complaint from

the second respondent for cancellation of the Deed of General Power of

Attorney and recommend to the first respondent / Sub-Registrar to

cancel the same, which is untenable and unsustainable in law.

23. The ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the second

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

respondent W.P.No.2992 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022 (P.Sunil alias Sunil

Prakash Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary,

Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai

– 600 009) passed by the First Bench of this Court, is not applicable to

the present case for the reason that there a challenge is made to the

circular dated 17.11.2021 issued by the Registration Department, in

which it is provided that a General Power of Attorney has to be revoked

by the principal by execution of a revocation deed and the Sub-Registrar

should not insist that the principal should intimate the agent regarding

the revocation of the General Power of Attorney through telegram/letter.

24. In the present case, the cancellation or revocation is sought on

the ground that the document is a fraudulent document and the same

has been fabricated, manipulated and impersonated by the petitioner.

Hence, it is crystal clear and evident that the second respondent wanted

to cancel or revoke the above said document only on the grounds that it

had been fraudulently fabricated and impersonated by the petitioner. If

at all the 2nd respondent wanted to cancel the Deed of General Power of

Attorney, she could very well directly approach the Sub-Registrar, 1st

respondent herein, to revoke or cancel instead of approaching the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai.

25. This Court at the time of admission of the writ petition, has

granted an interim stay in W.M.P.No.3014 of 2019 in W.P.No.2749 of

2019 and the same is still in force as on date and it is not vacated by this

Court.