DISTRICT REGISTRAR UNDER THE REGISTRATION ACT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO CANCEL THE REGISTERED DEED

The Registration Act, 1908 (‘Act’ for short) was enacted for the purpose of registering the documents through the competent officers. The State Government shall form districts and sub-districts, and shall prescribe, and may alter, the limits of such districts and sub-districts. The State Government may appoint such persons, whether public officers or not, as it thinks proper, to be Registrars of the several districts, and to be Sub-Registrars of the several sub-districts, formed as aforesaid, respectively. Section 17 of the Act prescribes the documents that are to be compulsorily registered.

Section 68 of the Act gives powers to the Registrar to superintend and control sub registrars. Section 68(1) provides that every Sub-Registrar shall perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub-Registrar is situate. Section 68(2) provides that every Registrar shall have authority to issue (whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered.

The Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Versus State of M.P. And Ors. - 2016 (10) TMI 1142 - Supreme Court analysed the powers of Registrar under the provisions of the Act, 1908 to cancel the registered documents. The Supreme Court observed that the power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered.

While registering a document some irregularity creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent action of the State Authority. The fact whether that was done deceitfully to cause loss and harm to the other party to the deed, is a question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by the party making such allegation. The same cannot be presumed.

The Supreme Court considered the question as to whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed and whether the Registering Officer like District Registrar and / or Sub-Registrar appointed by the State Government is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented. Once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document. The aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document before the civil court. The majority view of the Full Bench was that if a person is aggrieved by the extinguishment deed or its registration, his remedy is to seek appropriate relief in the civil court and a writ petition is not the proper remedy.

In Gurumurthi and Sangeetha @ Anbe Sangeetha Versus The District Registrar, Puducherry, Mohanasundaram Rajamani, Abdulla, Abdul Kafoor (Died), The Sub-Registrar, Puducherry, Umukulseem, Mariyam Riluvanan, Habeebullah Shibil, Safiya Sultana, Minor Shakriullah Fahim, Haseena Begum, Abdus Sabour Faizeni, Hafiz, Fajila Begum, Soumeya, Mariam Farida, Saboura - 2026 (3) TMI 733 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, the respondents in this case filed a complaint before the District Registrar that the Sale Deed Nos. 592 of 2009, 895 of 2009 and 351 of 2011 are null and void and are to be cancelled. The District Registrar entertained the complaint under Section 68(2) read with Section 75(4) of the Registration Act. He conducted investigation and on the investigation the District Registrar nullified the said sale deeds. The said orders have been challenged in the writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and therefore the appellants filed the present intra-appeal before the High Court.

The appellants submitted the following before the High Court-

• The power assumed by the District Registrar under Section 68(2) of the Act is based on erroneous interpretation of scope of the provision.
• The word “fraud” under Section 68(2) of the Act will have a restricted meaning so as to correct an error, if any, made during registration of a document.
• Even before filing this complaint, a civil suit was filed in O.S.No.897 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, with the prayer for declare the impugned sale deeds null and void and for permanent injunction. The said suit is pending still now.

The respondents submitted the following before the High Court-

• It was a transaction between husband and wife and a fraud came to be committed.
• The District Registrar exercised his power under section 68(2) of the Act, was well as the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration.
• The High Court is empowered to declare a document as null and void in exercise of powers of judicial review.
• The writ Court was right in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.
• The writ Court found that the transaction was a fraudulent transaction and sale deeds registered were also identified as fraud. Thus, there is no infirmity in the Writ order and the appeal is to be rejected.

The High Court heard the submissions of the parties to the appeal. The High Court considered the question for its decision as to whether the order of the District Registrar nullifying the sale deed by invoking power under Section 68(2) of the Act is in accordance with the provisions or not.

The High Court analysed the provisions of Section 68, which gives powers to the Registrar to superintend and control sub registrars. The High Court observed that the power to nullify registered document is not traceable under Section 68(2) of the Act. The Inspector General, Puducherry issued a circular in response to the judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in S.R.M. Packiri Rajan Versus Inspector General of Registration-Chennai, Deputy Inspector General of Registration-Madurai, District Registrar, (Administration) -Dindigul and Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Dindigul - 2021 (6) TMI 1200 - MADRAS HIGH COURT in connection with the execution of fraudulent registration of documents. the power to cancel the sale deeds is not available to the District Registrar both in the State of Tamil Nadu as well as in the Union Territory of Puducherry.

The writ courts repeatedly held that the registering Authority is not empowered to go into the civil rights of parties. The competent Civil Court of law alone is empowered to declare the civil rights. In respect of fraud, the High Court observed that in the event of fraud being committed by any person, threefold actions are provided for an aggrieved person, as detailed below-

• an aggrieved person may file a complaint to prosecute the persons under the Criminal Law;
• such person is entitled to approach the Civil Court for establishing his civil rights;
• he can approach the competent Authorities for cancelling the registered documents.

The definition of fraud cannot be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of civil disputes. in the event of fraud apparent on record, the High Court observed that the registering Authority can interfere, but, not otherwise. Therefore, the registering Authority is not empowered to usurp the power of the civil Court.

Since no power is vested on District Registrar to cancel the Registered deed, it has no power to adjudicate the civil rights of the parties. He ought not to have cancelled the registered documents. The right to property is a constitutional right. Such right can be taken away only by the authority of law. The complaint under Section 68(2) was filed after a lapse of 3 years after filing the civil suit. Therefore, the High Court held that it is not right for the District Registrar to cancel the sale deed when the Civil suit for the same cause of action is pending before the Civil Court. The District Registrar exceeded his power which is not available under Section 68 (2) of the Act.

The High Court also held that all the disputes between the parties to the present appeal are to be raised in the civil suit. Therefore, the High Cour set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.