Petitioner sought writ to quash sale deed entries created by fraud. Court directed District Registrar to hold an enquiry, hear all parties, and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks, disposing of the writ petition.
Directed first respondent to hold enquiry and pass appropriate final orders within twelve weeks after hearing all parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.04.2019 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.5132 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.5114 of 2018
K.Alphonse Gomaz ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Panakudi, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
3.M.Sagaya Edward Rajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Ref.No.3003/E1/2017, dated 26.10.2017 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to delete the entries in Book IV corresponding to register sale deed Document No.287 of 2002 registered on the file of the second respondent executed in favour of the third respondent created by fraud and impersonation and in violation of Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasudan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate
ORDER
The writ petitioner seeks annulment of the petition mentioned sale deed.
2.The petitioner's request was negatived by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner will have to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court. The stand taken by the first respondent cannot be faulted. But then, the first respondent can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hold an enquiry on the petitioner's complaint as per the circular bearing letter No.41530/U1/2017, dated 31.07.2018.
2
3.Therefore, this Court directs the first respondent to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate final orders in accordance with law after hearing the writ petitioner as well as the third respondent. The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AD-I)
/ True Copy /
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
To
1.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar, Panakudi, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
+1 CC to M/s.N.KAMESH, Advocate ( SR-61692[F] dated 23/04/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-62190[F] dated 24/04/2019 )
W.P.(MD)No.5132 2018
and W.M.P.(MD)No.5114 of 2018
22.04.2019
ES/09.05.2019/2P/5C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the District Registrar can hold an enquiry to quash entries made via fraud and impersonation in violation of Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.Alphonse Gomaz
District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Tirunelveli
Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Panakudi
M.Sagaya Edward Rajan
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
