CASE SUMMARY
In K. Latha & 2 Ors., Vs Union Territory of Puducherry and 3 Ors., [W.P. No. 2092 of 2023], the Madras High Court has held that unlike TN, District Registrar at Puducherry does not have powers to cancel registration of documents in the absence of specific provision to that effect. The Court has also reiterated that registering authorities cannot go into the civil rights of the parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On a complaint lodged by the 4th Respondent before the District Registrar, Puducherry that certain sale deeds executed by the Petitioner was fradulent in nature, the Registrar afforded opportunity to the parties concerned and declared that the documents registered are fradulently registered deeds. There was no specific order cancelling the registration of the documents. This order was under challenged in the Writ Petition.
RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:
- PETITIONER: The act of the District Registrar Puducherry is without jurisdiction since in Puducherry there is no specific provision unlike the TN amendment empowering registering authority to cancel registration of documents
- OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS: The order under challenge does not cancel the registration of documents and that it is only recorded by the Registrar that the documents registered are fraudulently registered deeds. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
- PRIVATE RESPONDENT: The order under challenge is an appealable order and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed since alternative remedy is available.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
Writ Petition allowed.
REASONS:
- Registration Act originally does not empower registering authorities to cancel registration of documents. Unlike TN, there is no amendment inserting specific provision empowering registering authority to cancel registration of a document;
- Registering authority cannot get into civil rights between parties. That is a matter to be agitated before the competent Civil Court. In the instant case, the registering authority has gone into the details of the documents presented by the parties and considered the rights of the parties to register the documents.
- Fraud or impersonation in the context of Registration Act, 1908 is distinguishable. "Fraud" in common parlance is wider and cannot be adopted in respect of the documents registered under the Registration Act.
CASE LAWS RELIED:
Satya Pal Anand Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., [(2016) 10 SCC 767].
COUNSELS:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Ravichander.
For the private Respondent: Mr. K. Sasindran.
For the Government of Puducherry: Dr. B. Ramaswamy.
[This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.]
Comments