A NAZAAR Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present Writ of Mandamus, praying for issuance of a direction by this Court in directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's complaint dated 12.07.2008 and to take action against the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, originally the property in Survey Nos.138/4, 138/3, 138/2, 138/5, 139/4, 161/1, 138/6 measuring in all 13 acres 31 cents and in Survey Nos.152/1 and 152/2 measuring an extent of 5 Acres and 60 cents situated at Thiruvalkudi Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, were purchased by him and his Uncle K.Abdul Wahab jointly from one Ambigapathy, as per two sale deeds dated 03.05.1990 (registered as Document Nos.375 and 376 of 1990 on the file of the District Registrar's Office, Karaikudi). It is the case of the petitioner that after purchasing all the properties, the possession and enjoyment of the property right from the date of purchase was in his hands and his Uncle, K.Abdul Wahab. They entered into an agreement to sell the property with one Ayyappan during April, 2007 and when the proposed purchaser applied for Encumbrance Certificate during May 2007, they came to know that some sale transactions took place encumbering their properties.

(2.) THE petitioner and his Uncle filed a complaint before the concerned Police Officials and it was agreed that they would work out the remedies/rights before the Civil Forum. A Civil Suit, O.S.No.20 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Karaikudi, was filed by one Saravanan and the purchaser, Ayyappan, who negotiated with the petitioner to purchase the property, agreed to contest the suit at his own cost. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the sixth respondent, viz., his alleged Power Agent, got a sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent dated 01.06.2007 and his Uncle, who was a joint owner, was not shown as vendor and this showed that the entire transactions were fraudulent one. Also that, the petitioner has changed his signature even as early as 2005. Later, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the sale deed dated 01.06.2007 was registered without a registered Power of Attorney. As per the Registration Act, 1908 only if the Third Respondent/Joint Sub Registrar, Karaikudi, passed an order in regard to the commission of fraud, then only, he can proceed further under the provisions of Registration Act.

(3.) MOREOVER, the petitioner also addressed another letter dated 22.12.2007 to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Madurai, praying for taking necessary action against those, who were involved in the creation of forged Sale Deed, dated 01.06.2007 by enclosing necessary documents as mentioned therein in detail, for which, a reply was sent by the District Registrar, Karaikudi, inter alia mentioning that as per the Inspector General's order No.35359/E1/2007, dated 05.10.2007, for cancellation of a particular document, both the parties should make their presence before the Sub Registrar and only after a person, who got the document, had agreed for cancellation, the Registering Officers would register the cancellation document for that purpose or if an order was obtained from the competent Court, then the cancellation document would be released from the said category and then only registered as the said document. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600 028, in a communication letter in Proceedings Ka.No.63261/E3/07, dated 03.01.2008, addressed to the petitioner had mentioned, among other things, that as per High Court's order, a case was registered before the Kundrakudi Police Station and the Department had no power to take action against those involved in the fraud/forgery.