P. Sudha vs Smt. Rafath Fatima, And 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5659 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                           AND
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                           I.A.No.3 OF 2022
                                IN/AND
                   WRIT APPEAL No.462 OF 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



        This order will dispose of both I.A.No.3 of 2022 as

well as writ appeal No.462 of 2022.


2.      We have heard Mr. E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned

Senior Counsel for the appellant; Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy,

learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner; and

Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned Government

Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for respondent Nos.2

to 7.

3. Writ appeal No.462 of 2022 has been filed against

the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Single

Judge in writ petition No.9162 of 2019 filed by

respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner. In the writ

petition, appellant was arrayed as respondent No.7. By

the order dated 03.01.2022, learned Single Judge took

the view that since the higher authorities prima facie

found evidence of fraud played by the executant while

executing fraudulent document No.9087 of 1992, dated

10.08.1992 (sale deed), official respondents were directed

to conduct enquiry under Section 82(c) of the

Registration Act, 1908 and thereafter to take necessary

action for launching prosecution against the concerned

expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

4. This Court vide the order dated 20.07.2022 had

admitted the appeal for hearing and passed an order

granting interim suspension of the order of the learned

Single Judge dated 03.01.2022.

5. For vacating the said order dated 20.07.2022,

respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.3 of 2022.

6. Respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner had filed the

related writ petition for a direction to the official

respondents for cancellation of sale deed bearing

document No.9087 of 1992 dated 10.08.1992 registered

before the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar as being

fraudulent. Case of the writ petitioner as projected in the

writ petition was that her husband late Mohammed

Mohinuddin Ali had purchased plot No.22 admeasuring

267 square yards situated at Meerpet Village, Jillelguda

Gram Panchayat, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal in Ranga

Reddy District (referred to hereinafter as 'subject

property') from one Ch.Malla Reddy through registered

sale deed bearing document No.4525 of 1990 dated

07.04.1990. Mohammed Mohinuddin Ali died on

23.01.2015 leaving behind him his widow i.e., the

petitioner and four daughters as his legal representatives.

7. When the writ petitioner intended to sell the subject

property, she applied for encumbrance certificate. On

receiving encumbrance certificate, she came to know that

the subject property was fraudulently sold by some

unknown persons impersonating her late husband under

an allegedly fraudulent registered sale deed bearing

document No.9087 of 1992 dated 10.08.1992 in favour of

the appellant.

8. Having come to know about the aforesaid

fraudulent sale deed, writ petitioner made a

representation dated 28.03.2019 before the Sub-

Registrar, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District to cancel the

fraudulent sale deed No.9087 of 1992. However, the

request of the writ petitioner was rejected by the District

Registrar on 20.04.2018. It was thereafter that

respondent No.1 had submitted a representation to the

Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps on

14.06.2018, on the basis of which District Registrar,

Ranga Reddy District was directed to enquire into the

matter and to submit a report. In the meanwhile

Principal Secretary to the Government of Telangana in

the Revenue Department had directed Commissioner and

Inspector General, Registration and Stamps on

08.10.2018 to conduct enquiry and to submit report. In

terms of the above direction, Deputy Inspector General of

Registration and Stamps conducted a detailed enquiry

and submitted report dated 23.10.2018. While the

Deputy Inspector General opined that unilateral

cancellation of sale deed was not permissible,

nonetheless the parties to document No.9087 of 1992

should be prosecuted as it was fraudulently obtained.

9. It was at that stage that the related writ petition

came to be filed. Appellant being respondent No.7 in the

writ petition contested the same and sought for dismissal

of the writ petition.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on

the basis of the pleadings as well as materials on record,

learned Single Judge framed the following issues for

consideration:

(1) Whether the registration authorities have the

competence to register a deed for cancellation of a

registered document unilaterally without the consent of

the rival party? and

(2) Whether the registration authorities have the

competence to take action against the persons who had

played fraud on the authorities in getting a document

registered?

11. In so far issue No.1 was concerned, learned Single

Judge vide the order dated 03.01.2022 after referring to

Rule 26(i)(k) of the Telangana State Rules framed under

the Registration Act, 1908, as well as the decision of the

Supreme Court held that for cancellation of registration,

the aggrieved party has to approach the competent civil

court. Therefore, this prayer of the first respondent/writ

petitioner was declined.

12. However, in so far the second issue pertaining to

competence of the registration authorities to take action

against those persons who had fraudulently got a

document registered, learned Single Judge referred to

Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 and issued the

impugned direction vide the order dated 03.01.2022.

13. While learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

strongly argued that the impugned direction is

unsustainable in as much as without a conclusive finding

of fraud by the competent Court, learned Single Judge

could not have directed the official respondents to launch

prosecution. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable

and therefore liable to be set aside. In the course of his

argument, learned Senior Counsel submits that in so far

the direction of the learned Single Judge relegating the

respondent No.1 to civil court, appellant has no

grievance. Appellant has grievance only with regard to the

direction issued in so far the second issue is concerned.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

No.1 submits that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, learned Single Judge was fully justified in issuing

the impugned direction. It is clearly evident that the

appellant had played fraud and by fraudulent means,

obtained registration of document No.9087 of 1992 dated

10.08.1992. No case for interference is made out and

therefore, writ appeal should be dismissed.

15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

16. We have already noted the two issues framed by

learned Single Judge for consideration. Question for

consideration before the learned Single Judge was

whether document No.9087 of 1992 dated 10.08.1992

was a fraudulent sale deed, registration of which was

obtained fraudulently and whether any direction could be

issued to the concerned authorities for cancellation of

such registered document.

17. Learned Single Judge held that on the point of

cancellation of a document, the party who wants to

cancel the same has to institute a civil suit for

cancellation of such document or for seeking

re-conveyance from the vendee. Therefore, learned Single

Judge relegated respondent No.1 to the competent civil

court to work out her remedy. Neither the appellant nor

respondent No.1 has raised any grievance as to the above

decision of the learned Single Judge.

18. Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides for

imposition of penalty for making false statements,

delivering false copies or translation, impersonation etc.,

in any proceedings under the Registration Act, 1908.

Section 82 reads as under:

"82. Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translation, false personation and abetment:- Whoever -

(a) Intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act, or

(b) Intentionally delivers to a Registering Officer, in any proceeding under Section 19 or Section 21, a false copy or translation of a document or a false copy of a map or plan; or

(c) Falsely personates another and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission, to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or

(d) Abets anything made punishable by this Act;

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine, or with both."

19. Thereafter, learned Single Judge from a careful

analysis of the factual matrix held that the original

executant of the document was not in the country at the

time of so called registration which was evident from the

endorsement made in the passport of the said person.

Learned Single Judge noted that the authorities had

prima facie found evidence that a fraud was played by the

executant and vide letter dated 23.10.2018 addressed by

the Deputy Inspector General to the Commissioner and

Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, District

Registrar was called upon to take necessary action under

Section 82(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. It was in the

above factual backdrop that learned Single Judge

directed the authorities to conclude the enquiry and take

necessary action for launching prosecution against the

culprit.

20. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view

taken by the learned Single Judge. While remedy for

cancellation of the alleged fraudulent sale deed is to

approach the competent civil court, parallelly for

punishing the persons responsible for impersonation etc,

the statute provides for a remedy in the form of Section

82 of the Registration Act, 1908 which we have already

extracted above. All that learned Single Judge has done is

to direct the concerned authority under the statute to

carry out the statutory mandate. One cannot have any

valid objection to such a direction of the learned Single

Judge.

21. That being the position, we are of the view that stay

granted by this Court on 20.07.2022 is liable to be

vacated and is accordingly vacated. Consequently,

I.A.No.3 is allowed and writ appeal No.462 of 2022 is

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

07.11.2022 Pln