BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 M.Ponraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, O/o.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai. 2.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Batalagundu. 3.M.Mallinayacker alias M.Oomathurai Nayacker 4.M.Rajendran 5.Gulsar Rehman 6.V.P.Malaichamy 7.E.Pandi 8.V.Veluchamy ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the fraudulent sale deed in document No.1894/2007 dated 20.06.2007 and to take immediate steps to prosecute the respondents 3 to 8 as provided under Section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act 1908. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Anandan ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar 1 and 2 Government Advocate :ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to
cancel the fraudulent sale deed in document No.1894/2007 dated 20.06.2007 and to
take immediate steps to prosecute the respondents 3 to 8 as provided under
Section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act 1908, by issuing a writ of mandamus.
2. The grievance of the petitioner as stood exposited from the affidavit
as well as the representations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
to the effect that the petitioner is the owner of the land measuring about 2
acres and 10 cents in patta No.1769. While so, the third and fourth respondents
fraudulently without having any title whatsoever sold the petitioner’s land in
favour of the fifth respondent through her power agent, the sixth respondent and
the seventh and eighth respondents are the witnesses to the said document. The
Sub Registrar should have taken action as against the perpetrators of such crime
by initiating criminal action and also cancellation of the registration, but he
has not chosen to do so.
3. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first and
second respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also cited the
decision of this Court in G.Ayyakkonar Vs. Inspector of General of Registration,
Chennai and Others reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1257. However the latest decision
of this Court on this point is that the Sub Registrar cannot go in to the title
of the vendor and he has to restrict himself only to the enquiry relating with
the matters referred to under Section 34(3) of the Registration Act. The latest
decision of this Court in Pandurangan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Reddiarpalayam,
Pondicherry and two others reported in 2007(1) CTC 641, an excerpt from the
order would run thus:
“In particular, the scope of an enquiry to be conducted by the Registering
Officer is circumscribed by sub-section (3) of Section 34 which reads as
follows:
“(3) The Registering Officer shall thereupon-
(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons
by whom it purports to have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him
and alleging that they have executed the document; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or
agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.”
In simple terms, the enquiry to be made by the Registering Officer 9s (i)
on the factum of execution of the document, (ii) the identity of the person who
claims to have executed the document; and (iii) the right of the
person who appears as a representative, assignee or agent of the executant.”
5. Hence, in these circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to approach
the Civil Court for getting the sale deeds declared as void and simultaneously
his title over the property.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Arul/dp
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Chennai.
2.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.The Sub Registrar,
Batalagundu.