Madras High Court
S.S.Gayathri Bai vs The District Registrar on 4 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
2025:MHC:2177
W.A.No.103 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.103 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.555 of 2025
S.S.Gayathri Bai,
W/o.S.N.Sivashankar Rao ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Registrar Office,
Collectorate,
Krishnagiri – 635 115.
2.Krishnappa,
S/o.Narayanappa
3.Chenna Veerachari,
S/o.K.Kittachari
4.V.Ramappa,
S/o.Chinna Venkatappa ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent, 1865 against the
Order dated 25.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.14645 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
W.A.No.103 of 2025
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.V.Srimathi
For Respondents :
For R1 : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Not ready in notice
For R3 and R4 : Died – steps due
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The lis on hand has been instituted, challenging the Writ Order dated
25.10.2024 in W.P.No.14645 of 2024.
2. The proceedings of the District Registrar, rejecting the application
submitted by the Appellant, seeking cancellation of the registered Sale Deed in
proceeding dated 14.02.2024 came to be challenged by the Appellant in the writ
proceedings.
3. The District Registrar considered the application filed by the
Appellant/Petitioner and made a finding that the allegations of impersonation
cannot be adjudicated by him and relegated the Appellant/Petitioner to approach
the competent Civil Court of law for redressal of her grievances.
4. Not satisfied with the Order of the District Registrar, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
Appellant/Petitioner filed the Writ Petition. The Writ Court considered the
issues and made a finding that Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 has
been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Appeal preferred
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is pending.
5. Under these circumstances, the District Registrar has no power to
adjudicate the allegations relating to fraud or impersonation by invoking the
powers conferred under Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908. Thus, the
Appellant/Petitioner has chosen to file the present Intra-Court Appeal under
Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent, 1865.
6. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant would
contend that impersonation is apparent on the face of record. Mere verification
of the signature of the Appellant/Petitioner in the Original Deed as well as the
alleged Sale Deed would be sufficient to form an opinion that the signatures are
forged.
7. When a prima facie case has been established by the
Appellant/Petitioner, the Registering Authority ought to have initiated action for
cancellation of the registered Sale Deed by exercising the power conferred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
under Section 82 and Section 83 of the Registration Act read with Rule 54 and
Rule 55 of the Registration Rules.
8. Since the respondents failed to exercise the power, the Writ Petition
came to be instituted. The Writ Court rejected the Petition merely on the ground
that Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been struck down.
Therefore, the District Registrar, cannot exercise any powers to deal with the
allegations of forgery and impersonation etc.,
9. Learned Senior Counsel placed on reliance the Judgment of the Kerala
High Court in the case of “Mary Mohan Chacko and another Vs. Inspector
General, Department of Registration and others” reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Ker 1016 in W.P.(C) No.33749 of 2023 dated 29.02.2024, wherein a
reference was made under Section 83A of the Registration Act, 1908.
10. Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court considered the issues
under Section 83A of the Registration Act, 1908, deals with “Cancellation of
registered documents in certain cases”. The said provision is pari materia to
Section 77A of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendments) Act, 2008, which
came to be struck down. However, Section 83A of the Registration Act, 1908
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
relates to the amendment made in the State of Kerala (State Amendment),
cannot be applied in the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the said Judgment is
of no avail to the Appellant/Petitioner for the purpose of succeeding in the
present Writ Appeal.
11. Let us consider the scope of Section 83 and Section 84 of the
Registration Act, 1908 relied upon by the Appellant/Petitioner. Section 83
denotes “Registering Officer may commence prosecutions”. Sub-Section (1) to
Section 83 stipulates that “a prosecution for any offence under this Act coming
to the knowledge of a Registering Officer in his official capacity may be
commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector General, the Registrar or
the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may
be, the offence has been committed”. Sub-Section (2) to Section 83
contemplates “save as provided in Section 80G, offences punishable under this
Act shall be triable by any Court or Officer exercising powers not less than
those of a Magistrate of the Second Class”.
12. Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with “penalty” for
making false statements, delivering false copies or translations of documents,
false personation and abetting offences under the Act. Even in such cases,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
where the Registering Authority found that there is an impersonation or fraud at
the time of registration, he / she has to initiate action to prosecute the offences.
13. In this context, it is useful to refer the following observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others” reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767:
“46. In our considered view, the decision in Thota
Ganga Laxmi [Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P., (2010)
15 SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1063] was dealing with
an express provision, as applicable to the State of Andhra
Pradesh and in particular with regard to the registration of
an extinguishment deed. In absence of such an express
provision, in other State legislations, the Registering
Officer would be governed by the provisions in the 1908
Act. Going by the said provisions, there is nothing to
indicate that the Registering Officer is required to
undertake a quasi-judicial enquiry regarding the veracity of
the factual position stated in the document presented for
registration or its legality, if the tenor of the document
suggests that it requires to be registered. The validity of
such registered document can, indeed, be put in issue
before a court of competent jurisdiction.
47. In the present case, the document in question no
doubt is termed as an extinguishment deed. However, in
effect, it is manifestation of the decision of the Society to
cancel the allotment of the subject plot given to its member
due to non-fulfilment of the obligation by the member
concerned. The subject document is linked to the decision
of the Society to cancel the membership of the allottee of
the plot given to him/her by the Housing Society. In other
words, it is the decision of the Society, which the Society is
entitled to exercise within the framework of the governing
cooperative laws and the bye-laws which are binding on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
members of the Society. The case of Thota Ganga Laxmi
[Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 207 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1063], besides the fact that it was
dealing with an express provision contained in the statutory
Rule, namely, Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh
Registration Rules, 1960, was also not a case of a deed for
cancellation of allotment of plot by the Housing Society.
But, of a cancellation of the registered sale deed executed
between private parties, which was sought to be cancelled
unilaterally. Even for the latter reason the exposition in
Thota Ganga Laxmi [Thota Ganga Laxmi v. State of A.P.,
(2010) 15 SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1063] will have
no application to the fact situation of the present case.
48. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, we are
of the considered opinion that, the High Court has justly
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant with
liberty to the appellant to pursue statutory remedy resorted
to by him under the 1960 Act or by resorting to any other
remedy as may be advised and permissible in law. All
questions to be considered in those proceedings will have
to be decided on its own merits.
49. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in the above
terms with no order as to costs.”
14. After the Judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal
Anand case (cited supra), the State of Tamil Nadu brought an amendment and
inserted Section 77A in the Registration Act, 1908. However, the said provision
has been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
“M.Kathirvel and others Vs. The Inspector General of Registration,
Department of Registration, Chennai and others” reported in (2024) 4 CTC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
769 in W.P.Nos.10291 of 2022 etc., batch dated 02.08.2024, and no more in the
statute book.
15. Section 86 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides protection to the
Registering Officer in respect of the actions done in good faith. Section 86
denotes “Registering Officer not liable for thing bona fide or refused in his
official capacity”. It states that “no registering officer shall be liable to any suit,
claim or demand by reason of anything in good faith done or refused in his
official capacity”. Therefore, the involvement of the Registering Authority
relating to the allegations of fraud, cheating, impersonation ought to be proved
beyond any pale of doubt before the competent forum and in the absence
thereof, no action is permissible against the Registering Authority in view of the
statutory protection provided under Section 86 for the official duties performed
in good faith.
16. Referring to Rule 54 and Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, the said
Rules contemplate the procedures to be followed before the Registration.
Chapter XI with reference to Section 35 of the Registration Act, 1908
contemplates the procedures on admission and denial of execution of the
documents. Rule 54 and Rule 55 of the Registration Rules, 1908 deal with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
“Enquiry before registration”. Therefore, the said Rules empower the
Registering Authority to verify the document, identity etc., before the
registration of documents. However, the said Rules are of no avail to the
Appellant/Petitioner herein since the Sale Deed had been registered and
thereafter the Appellant/Petitioner came to know that her property was alienated
through alleged impersonation.
17. Once a document is presented before the Registering Authority, and
the Authority if find any irregularities/illegalities, powers are vested under the
Act for initiation of action.
18. Therefore, in normal circumstances, documents once registered and
released by the Registering Authority, and if any person aggrieved from and out
of such registration on account of impersonation, fraud etc., he has to approach
the competent civil Court for cancellation of the documents/instruments or to
prosecute the offenders under the criminal law by following the procedures as
contemplated. The enquiry to be conducted by the Registering Authority or the
District Registrar or the Inspector General of Registration as the case may be
confined with reference to the procedures to be followed and in the context and
scope of the Registration Act, 1908, Rules and certainly not beyond that.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
19. Senior Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner states that approaching
the civil Court or prosecuting the offenders under criminal law would be a
cumbersome process and it will take a long time, and the aggrieved person has
to wait for long years. However, this Court cannot go beyond the scope of the
Registration Act, since in such matters, the allegations of impersonation and
forgery ought to be established based on documents and evidence, including
oral evidence.
20. No doubt an enquiry before registration under Rule 54 and Rule 55 of
the Registration Rules is of paramount importance and the Registering
Authority is expected to be diligent and vigilant, while exercising the powers
during the course of verification of the documents. In this regard, Section 13 of
the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891, denotes “when powers and duties to
be exercised and performed”. It states that “where an Act confers a power or
imposes a duty, then the power may be exercised and the duty shall be
performed from time to time as occasion requires”.
21. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has arrived at an
irresistible conclusion that the grounds raised in the present Writ Appeal are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
insufficient for the purpose of considering the relief sought for in the Writ
Petition as well as in the present Writ Appeal. Consequently, the Writ Order
stands confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, the
Appellant/Petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedy before the competent
Court of law. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
04.09.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
arb
To:
The District Registrar,
Registrar Office,
Collectorate,
Krishnagiri – 635 115.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
and
04.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 11:46:01 am )
