K.Kuppan Vs the District Collector

4.The Thasildar, Ponneri Taluk , Tiruvallur District. 5.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, Utthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 006.

¶14

6.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious And Endowments Department, Vellore.

¶15

1/16

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶18

7.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, Tiruvallur.

¶19

8.Arulmigu Venugopalswamy Temple^, Rep. by its: The Executive Officer, Athamanancherry Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Prayer :

¶22

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to transfer the patta in favour of the petitioner in property measuring to an extent of 0.38 cents in Survey No. 2/6B , 0.43 cents in Survey No. 7/2 and 0.26 cents in Survey No. 7/3A total extent of 1 acre 7 cents situated at Athamananchery village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur district after considering the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2024 and 28.06.2024.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pandiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash (R1 to R4) Government Advocate Mr.S.Ravichandran (R5 to R8) Additional Government Pleader

¶24

2/16

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Mandamus directing the 4 th respondent to transfer the patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property, measuring to an extent of 0.38 cents, comprised in Survey No. 2/6B , 0.43 cents in Survey No. 7/2 and 0.26 cents in Survey No. 7/3A total extent of 1 acre 7 cents situated at Athamananchery village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District after considering the petitioner's representations dated 31.01.2024 and 28.06.2024.

¶29

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the aforesaid property was purchased by one L.Srinivasulu Reddy from one Susila Ammal and her Legal Heirs by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 27.10.1980. Thereafter, the said subject property was purchased by the petitioner from the said Srinivasulu Reddy vide Sale Deed dated 17.08.1988.

¶30

3. Further, he would submit that since the patta pertaining to the

¶31

3/16

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶34

aforesaid property stands in the name of the 8 th respondent-Temple, the petitioner made representations dated 31.01.2024 and 28.06.2024 to the respondents 1 to 4 seeking for transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner. Since, no action has been taken till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.

¶35

4. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 5 to 8, on instructions would submit that, originally, the property belongs to one Susila Ammal and her minor legal heirs. The said Susila Ammal sold her property as well as the property of minor legal heirs to and in favour of Arulmigu Venugopalswamy Temple, represented by its Temporary Dharmakartha, Mr.Srinivasulu Reddy, by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 27.10.1980, but, the petitioner has wrongly interpreted the same as if his vendor, Mr.L.Srinivasulu Reddy, has purchased the said property in his personal capacity.

¶36

5. That apart, by referring the sale deed dated 27.10.1980, he would submit that the name of L.Srinivasulu Reddy had appeared in the purchaser 4/16

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶39

column of the revenue records only as he was the 'Temporary Dharmakartha' (Trustee) of the temple.

¶40

6. Further, he would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the subject property till the execution of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 27.10.1980. Only after the purchase of the said property by the petitioner, the dispute with regard to the ownership arose. Therefore, it is submitted that since the property belongs to the temple, the respondents are not in a position to issue patta in the name of the petitioner. He therefore, prays for the dismissal of this writ petition.

¶41

7. Heard both sides and perused the records.

¶42

8. In the case on hand, the subject property was purchased by the petitioner from one Mr.L.Srinivasulu Reddy vide Sale Deed dated 17.08.1988. Since the patta pertaining to the aforesaid property stands in the name of the 8 th respondent-Temple, the petitioner made representations dated 31.01.2024 and 28.06.2024 to the respondents 1 to 4 seeking for transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner. However, the said representations were not 5/16

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶45

considered by the respondents till date.

¶46

According to the respondents, initially, the subject property was sold, by one Susila Ammal and her legal heirs, by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 27.10.1980, to and in favour of the 8 th respondent, viz., Arulmigu Venugopalaswamy Temple, represented by one Mr.L.Srinivasulu Reddy (Temporary Dharmakartha). Hence, it was contended that the subject property belongs to the 8 th respondent-Temple and the same was not purchased by one L.Srinivasalu Reddy in his individual capacity. That apart, d ue to a mere mentioning of the name of Srinivasulu Reddy in the purchaser's column of the revenue records, it cannot be inferred that he is the absolute owner of the subject property.

¶47

9. On the other hand, it was contended by the petitioner the said Mr.L.Srinivasalu Reddy has purchased the said property in his individual capacity and sold the same in favour of the petitioner.

¶48

10. Now, the issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the

¶49

6/16

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶52

subject property was purchased by one L.Srinivasalu Reddy in his individual capacity or qua Temporary Dharmakartha of the Temple.

¶53

11. To find out the above aspect, it would be beneficial to refer to the

¶54

relevant portion of the Sale Deed dated 27.10.1980, which are extracted hereinbelow:-

¶55

”U : gha ; 3745-? f ; F tpf ; fpuak

¶56

1980k; tUc&k; mf;nlhgh; khjk; 27e; njjp tl brd;id gjpt[ khtl;lk; bghd;ndhp rhh; gjpt[ khtl;lk; be/104. mj;jkz";nrhp kJuh bul;og;ghisk; fpuhkj;jpy; vGe;jUspapUf;Fk; _ ntQq nfhghy !;thkp nfhapy; jh;fhy jh;kfh;jh br';fh bul;o Fkhuh; L/rPdpthRY bul;o mth;fSf;F.

¶57

br';fy;gl;L $py;yh Cj;Jf; nfhl;il jhY}fh nguz;L:h; kJ}uh vy;yk;kh ngl;il fpuhkj;jpy; FoapUf;Fk; P/Kdpuhkh bul;o k]dtp RrPyk;khs; 1 ic& RrPyk;khs; ikdh; kf;fs; Rkhh; 12 taJ fphpjud; 1. Rkhh; 9 taJ rush 2. Rkhh; 7 taJ utp 3. Mfpath;fSf;F fhh;oaDk; jhahUkhd ic& RrPyk;khs; Mfpa ehd; vdf;fhft[k; vd; ikdh; kf;fSf;fhft[k; rk;kjpj;J vGjpf; bfhLj;j e" ; ir epy Rj;j tpf;fpiuag; gj;jpuk; ahbjdpy; ic& bghd;ndhp tl;lk; be/104 mj;jkz";nrhp fpuhkj;jpy; vd; jhahh; V/Mjpak;khs; vd; ngUf;F vGjp itj;j brl;oy;bkd;l

¶58

gj ; jpuk ; bghd ; ndup rhu ; gjptf gj ; jpu vz ; 1545-21/04/70 d ; go fpilj ; j f P H ; fz ; l brl ; oa{ypy ; fz ; l epyj ; ij ehd ; Cj ; Jf ; nfhl ; il

¶59

7/16

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶62

jhYfh nguz ; L : u ; fpuhkj ; jpy ; ntW epyk ; th' ; Fk ; bghUl ; L vz ; 104/ mj ; jkz" ; nrup kJhuh bul ; og ; ghisak ; fpuhkk ; _ntZnfhghy! ; thkp nfhapYf ; fhf mjd ; jw ; fhy ju ; kfu ; jhthd j' ; fSf ; F Rj ; jf ; fpiuak ; j P u ; j ; J fpiua bjhif U : gha ; 3745-? (vGj ; jhy ; U : gha ; Kthapuj ; J vGEhw ; W ehw ; gj ; J Ie ; J kl ; Lk ; ) bgw ; Wf ; bfhz ; L f P H ; fz ; l brl ; oa{y ; epyj ; ij ,d ; nw j' ; fs Rthjpdk bra ; J tpl ; nldhifahy ; ,J Kjy ; jh' ; fs ; ifg ; gw ; wp ru ; t tpy ; y' ; f Rj ; jpaha ; Mz ; lDgtpj ; Jf ; bfhs ; s ntz ; oaJ.”

¶63

12. A perusal of the above sale deed, particularly, the highlighted portion contained in last para, makes it that Mr.L.Srinivasulu Reddy had purchased the subject property only on behalf of the Temple, in the capacity of a Temporary Dharmakartha of the Temple, which means, he is not the absolute owner of the subject property. However, the said L.Srinivasulu Reddy, by playing fraud, had sold the subject property to the petitioner and executed the Sale Deed dated 17.08.1988, in favour of the petitioner.

¶64

13. Further, a mere perusal of the sale deed dated 27.10.1980 makes it very clear that L.Srinivasulu Reddy had signed the said sale deed in his capacity as a Temporary Dharmakartha. When such being the case, it is very clear that the property was purchased only in the name of Temple.

¶65

8/16

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶68

14. In spite of being aware of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner had purchased the subject property. Thus, the fraud had not only committed by L.Srinivasulu Reddy (petitioner's vendor) but it is also apparent with regard to the involvement of petitioner as well.

¶69

15. In terms of Section 22B of the Registration Act, 1908, onus is cast on the Registering Authority to examine the veracity of the document/deed presented for registration and to verify the identity of the vendor, who intends to execute the deed. In such case, it is clear that the Registering Authority is supposed to have gone into the aforesaid aspects and discovered the veracity of the sale deed, which was presented by Mr.L.Srinivasulu Reddy, for the purpose of registration, by way of comparing it with the earlier Sale Deed with the document/sale deed. If the aspects, such as veracity of document and identity of the executor, were properly examined/verified at the time of registration, certainly, the Registering Authority wouldn't have allowed the parties to get registered the sale deed, which was executed by playing fraud or forgery or fabrication of documents. However, in the present case, the concerned Registering Authority had failed 9/16

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶72

to do all such exercises.

¶73

The fraud played by the petitioner's vendor is apparent from a mere perusal and comparison of previous sale deed dated 27.10.1980 and the subsequent sale deed dated 17.08.1988. The initial sale deed dated 27.10.1980 was executed by one Susila Ammal and her legal heirs in favour of the Temple, whereas, the 2^nd sale deed dated 17.08.1988 was executed by the petitioner's vendor in his individual capacity as if it was his own property. Upon comparing these two sale deeds, this Court is able to clearly witness the fraud committed by Mr.L.Srinivasulu Reddy (petitioner's vendor) while executing the sale deed dated 17.08.1988.

¶74

In view of all the above discussions, it is crystal clear that the execution of Sale Deed on 17.08.1988 by L.Srinivasalu Reddy in favour of the petitioner is a fraudulent one, since, the said L.Srinivasalu Reddy had executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the subject property, by claiming himself to have purchased the same in his individual capacity. Though, the present petition has been filed for issuance of a 10/16

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶76

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶77

Mandamus to the 4^th respondent for transfer of patta in his favour with respect to the subject property, based on the sale deed dated 17.08.1988, considering the fact that since the authenticity of sale deed, based on which, the petitioner's claims rests upon is under test of fraud, this Court is inclined invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution to cancel the registration of the document, as, the same would sub-serve the purpose of rendering substantial justice to the parties concerned.

¶78

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Asset Reconstruction

¶79

Company (India) Limited Vs. S.P.Velayutham and Others (2022) 8 SCC

¶80

210, wherein, in respect of a similar issue, it was held as under:-

¶81

“57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a registered document is null and void, all the aforesaid three steps which comprise the entire process of execution and registration come under challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a document or the right and title of a person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy

¶82

11/16

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶84

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶85

will only be to go to the civil court. But where a party questions only the failure of the Registering Authority to perform his statutory duties in the course of the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform their duties within the bounds of law.

¶86

58. It may be noted that when a High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was utter failure on the part of the registering authority to stick to mandate of law, the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but does not declare the very execution of the documents to be null and void. A declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the registering authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law.”

¶87

59. It is well settled that if something is required by law to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not otherwise. Examining whether the registering authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly

¶88

12/16

¶89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶90

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶91

within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. However, it is needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to exercise jurisdiction in cases where the violations of procedure on the part of the registering authority are not gross or the violations do not shock the conscience of the Court. Lack of jurisdiction is completely different from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.”

¶92

A perusal of the above judgement makes it clear that if any document was executed by fraud or forgery, the same can be cancelled by invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the High Court, sitting in the writ jurisdiction, but the declaration of a sale deed as null and void is the exclusive jurisdiction of a civil court. The judgement also reinforced the Registrar's duty to verify the validity of a Power of Attorney (PoA) presented for a property transaction, preventing the registration of the same when the PoA was flawed, and emphasizing that such a flaw makes the registration process itself void.

¶93

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgement, this Court is inclined to cancel the registration

¶94

13/16

¶95

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶96

W.P.No.33379 of 2025

¶97

of the sale deed by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶98

Accordingly, this Court pass the following orders/directions:-

¶99

(i) The Sale Deed dated 17.08.1988

¶100

executed by Mr.L.Srinivasulu Reddy in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled.

¶101

(ii) The respondents shall communicate this order to the concerned Sub Registrar in order to enable him to make necessary entries with respect to the cancellation of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 17.08.1988 in the concerned Register and other revenue records.''

¶102