✦ High Court of India · 22 Jul 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 22 Jul 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

22 Jul 2024

Bench

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE

Length

1,329 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

W.P.No.12597 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.07.2024CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD Writ Petition No.12597 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.15536 of 2020Manjuladevi @ Manjula ... PetitionerVs.1.The Inspector General of Registration,No.100, Santhome High Road,Pattinapakkam,Chennai – 600 028.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration (D.I.G. of Registration),Electronic Complex,Thiru Vi Ka Guindy Industrial Estate,Guindy, Chennai – 32.3.The Additional Inspector General of Registration (A.I.G. of Registration),No.100, Santhome High Road,Pattinapakkam,Chennai – 600 028.4. The District Registrar,District Registration Office,1st Floor, Kurlagam,North-Chennai,Chennai – 01.5.The Sub-Registrar,Sub-Registrar Office,Redhills, Chennai – 600 052.Page No.1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 20206.Munirathinam7.Malliga8.Chamundeswari … RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of Na.Ka.No.4298/Aa/2019 dated 12.08.2020 of the second respondent and do hereby quash the same and consequently directing the fourth respondent to initiate legal action under section 82 & 83 of the Registration Act in petitioner's representations dated 24.10.2017 & 08.07.2019 or direct the second respondent to dispose the appeal on merits in fresh manner by considering the documents and grounds raised in the appeal.For Petitioner :M/s.R.Poornima,for Mr.R.VenkatesuluFor Respondents 1 to 5 :Mr.P.Ananda Kumar,Government AdvocateFor Respondents 6 to 8 :Mr.K.Karthik Jothi O R D E RThe relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records of Na.Ka.No.4298/Aa/2019 dated 12.08.2020 of the second respondent and do hereby quash the same and consequently directing the fourth respondent to initiate legal action under section 82 & 83 of the Page No.2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 2020Registration Act in petitioner's representations dated 24.10.2017 & 08.07.2019 or direct the second respondent to dispose the appeal on merits in fresh manner by considering the documents and grounds raised in the appeal.2. The case of the petitioner is that the property in dispute belongs to petitioner's maternal grand parents viz., Sampath Iyer and Mrs.Janagavally Thayarammal and they executed a registered settlement deed in Doc.No.1538 of 1973 dated 11.06.1973 in the joint names of petitioner and her sister Ms.Bharathi. Based on the registered settlement deed, the Tahsildar, Ponneri issued a joint patta No.223 dated 09.05.1978 in favour of the petitioner and her sister. This being so, the petitioner's sister Ms.Bharathi expired on 24.11.2013. Thereafter, the respondents 6 to 8 executed a power of attorney to one P.Thiyagarajan in Doc.No.7657 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016, without producing any relevant documents to show that they are the owners of the property and without verifying these documents, the fifth respondent registered the aforesaid power of attorney.2.1. After executing the fraudulent power of attorney, the respondents 6 to 8 approached the revenue department and made a representation dated Page No.3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 202014.02.2017 before the Tahsildar, Ponneri for grant of joint patta stating that they are the legal heirs of Ramamoorthy's second wife. The said Ramamoorthy is the father of the petitioner. But the same was rejected by directing them to approach the Civil Court to obtain the same. Suppressing the rejection of joint patta, the respondents 6 to 8 applied for joint patta through online and obtained the same. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 23.10.2017 before the fourth respondent to take action against the respondents 6 to 8 for executing a fraudulent documents.2.2. Thereafter, the respondents 7 & 8 relinquished their share and executed release deed in favour of the sixth respondent viz., Munirathinam vide Doc.No.5173 of 2017 dated 01.09.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29421 of 2017 before this Court to consider the representation dated 24.10.2017. Pending writ petition, the sixth respondent namely Munirathinam executed two more power of attorney vide Doc.Nos.7462 of 2017 and 7463 of 2017 dated 10.11.2017 in favour of third parties. This Court vide order dated 27.03.2019 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a Page No.4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 2020copy of that order.2.3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2019, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.07.2019 before the fourth respondent to cancel the fraudulent execution of power of attorney vide Doc.Nos.7462 & 7463 of 2017 dated 10.11.2017 but, without giving any findings about the power of attorney Doc.No.7657 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016, which is the root cause for the dispute, the fourth respondent wrongly quoted the Doc.No.5173 of 2016 and rejected the representation vide No.6746/AA5/2019 dated 25.07.2019.2.4. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 25.07.2019, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was also rejected vide Na.Ka.No.4298/Aa1/2019 dated 12.08.2020. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given representation to take action against the respondents 6 to 8 for Page No.5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 2020execution of fraudulent power of attorney vide Doc.No.7657 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016 in favour of them and subsequent release deed vide Doc.No.5173 of 2017 in favour of the sixth respondent. However, the second respondent failed to consider the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner ie., fraudulent power of attorney vide Doc.No.7657 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016 and release deed vide Doc.No.5173 of 2017 and erroneously confirmed the order of the fourth respondent by stating that the aforesaid documents were executed on the basis of valid patta and there is no violation of any rules and the same is in accordance with law. Hence, she prayed this Court to allow the writ petition.4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.5. At this juncture, it is pertinent to extract the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.4298/Aa1/2019 dated 12.08.2020 and the same reads as follows: nky;KiwaPL kDjhuuupd; kD. tprhuiz“ mYtyhpd; Kot[. kDjhuh; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuu;fs; thf;FK:yk; Mfpait ftdKld; ghprPypf;fg;gl;ld/ jpU/k";Rshnjtp (v) k";Rsh mth;fs; Fwpg;gpLk; Mtz';fshd 5173-2016. 7463-2017 Mfpad Page No.6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 2020gl;lhtpd; mog;gilapy; jhd; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,tw;wpy; gjpt[ tpjpkPwy; VJkpy;iy/ nkw;go kDjhuhpd; nfhhpf;ifahdJ chpikapay; bjhlh;ghdJ vd;gjhy; chpa chpikapay; ePjpkd;wk; K:ynk jPu;t[ fhz ,aYk; vDk; epiyapy; khtl;lg;gjpthshpd; Miz Vw;W nky;KiwaPL kDit js;Sgo bra;a Kot[ bra;J mt;thnw Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/”6. On perusal of the above order dated 12.08.2020, it is clear and evident that instead of verifying the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid power of attorney vide Doc.No.7657 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016 executed by the respondents 6 to 8, which is the root cause for the present dispute, the second respondent erroneously dealt with the power of attorney vide Doc.No.7463 of 2017 executed by Munirathinam in favour of third parties. Hence, on this ground alone the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.7. Hence, this Court remits the matter back to the fourth respondent for a fresh consideration after giving due notice to both parties, affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as private respondents/interested parties if any, to take into consideration all the relevant documents submitted the parties in regard to the subject matter property and Page No.7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 2020pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law thereby following the above principles of natural justice within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 22.07.2024 vmIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking Order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo:1.The Inspector General of Registration,No.100, Santhome High Road,Pattinapakkam,Chennai – 600 028.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration (D.I.G. of Registration),Electronic Complex,Thiru Vi Ka Guindy Industrial Estate,Guindy, Chennai – 32.3.The Additional Inspector General of Registration (A.I.G. of Registration),No.100, Santhome High Road,Pattinapakkam,Chennai – 600 028.Page No.8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 20204. The District Registrar,District Registration Office,1st Floor, Kurlagam,North-Chennai,Chennai – 01.5.The Sub-Registrar,Sub-Registrar Office,Redhills, Chennai – 600 052.Page No.9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 2020J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.vm W.P.No.12597 of 2020Page No.10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12597 of 202022.07.2024Page No.11 of 11

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India