R. THIRUPATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Abdul Rahman, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. J. Purushothaman, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. T.M. Pappiah, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Second to Fourth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The chronological sequence of events leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are given below:-

(3.) Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to recapitulate here that Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, states that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court, which would mean that the award dated 21.04.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat in this case, has to be treated as a decree in O.S. No. 54 of 2015 passed by the Sub-court, Chengalpet. On a perusal of the order impugned in the Writ Petition, it is evident that the Third Respondent has proceeded on an erroneous premise as if Rule 116-A of the Registration Rules is not applicable when there has been revocation/cancellation/rectification/modification of a previously registered document by a Court. In this context, it would be necessary to extract Rule 116-A of the Registration Rules, which reads as follows:- "116-A. On the registration of a document, which revokes, or cancels or rectified an error in, or modifies the terms of, a document previously registered in the same class of register book or of a return of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act or of a document received and filed under Section 89 of the Act, vide rule 11 supra or on the receipt of a communication from a Revenue Officer or from a Court which intimates a similar revocation, cancellation, rectification or modification, a note shall be entered at foot of the entry of the latter document or communication as under:-