DISTRICT REGISTRAR (MADURAI SOUTH) Vs. R. MARISELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Department is on appeal against the order of the Writ Court where the Writ Court found that the Department cannot launch upon an inquiry under Sec. 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity "the Act"), regarding the validity of the document which was executed prior to the introduction of Sec. 77-A of the Act. The jurisdiction to entertain complaints or cancel documents is vested with the Registrar under Sec. 77-A of the Act. The said Sec. reads as follows:-

(2.) Sec. 22-A of the Act which was introduced with effect from 20/10/2016 deals with documents executed in respect of properties that are owned by the State Government or other religious institutions. It is not in dispute that Sec. 22-A will not apply to the facts of this case. Sec. 22-B of the Act reads as follows:-

(3.) A perusal of the representation dtd. 9/12/2022 which has been made by the petitioner shows that the eighth respondent in the writ petition, who is the second wife of the petitioner's grandfather has claimed title to the property and has sold the property as if it belongs to her. This type of document cannot fall within the definition of a "forged document" under Sec. 22-B of the Act. In the absence of a complaint of forgery or impersonation, the document will not be in contravention of Sec. 22-B so as to enable the Registrar to invoke the power under that Sec. . The power of the Registrar to cancel the document is dependent on a document falling within any of the clauses of Sec. 22-B. If the document does not fall within Sec. 22-B or Sec. 22-A, the Registrar has no power to cancel the same. Sec. 2(5-A) of the Act provides that the term "forged document"shall have a same meaning as assigned to it under Sec. 470 of IPC.