Writ jurisdiction in registration disputes permits fact-finding enquiry, but competing sale deeds require unbiased examination of both documents.

In a registration dispute, the Supreme Court accepted that the High Court could direct a fact-finding enquiry in writ jurisdiction even though the Registration Act, 1908 does not expressly provide for such an exercise, and the finding concerning the respondent's deed was left undisturbed. It further held that where the genuineness of competing sale deeds is in issue, fairness requires an independent examination of each document. Because the appellant's deed had not been examined on merits and the complaint officer had already formed an adverse view, a separate enquiry by a different authority was directed. The matter was remitted to the Inspector General of Registration for that limited purpose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the enquiry directed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be sustained in respect of the registration dispute. (ii) Whether the genuineness of the appellant's sale deed also required a separate enquiry, along with the respondent's deed.

Issue (i): Whether the enquiry directed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be sustained in respect of the registration dispute.

Analysis: The enquiry undertaken pursuant to the High Court's directions was treated as a fact-finding exercise and not as a proceeding barred merely because the Registration Act, 1908 does not expressly provide for such an enquiry. The finding already recorded regarding the respondent's deed was not interfered with, since there was no legal infirmity in the High Court's power to order an enquiry in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The enquiry, to the extent it related to the respondent's deed, was upheld and the finding of genuineness was left undisturbed.

Issue (ii): Whether the genuineness of the appellant's sale deed also required a separate enquiry, along with the respondent's deed.

Analysis: The appellant's deed had not been examined on merits, even though the High Court had contemplated consideration of both documents. The officer who had lodged the complaint was also not regarded as the appropriate authority to conduct the enquiry, since the same officer had already formed a view adverse to the appellant. The Court therefore held that fairness required a separate enquiry by a different authority into the appellant's document.

Conclusion: A separate enquiry into the genuineness of the appellant's deed was necessary, and the matter was remitted to the Inspector General of Registration for that limited purpose.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part: the finding regarding the respondent's deed was maintained, but a fresh and independent enquiry into the appellant's deed was directed before the Inspector General of Registration.

Ratio Decidendi: In exercise of writ jurisdiction, a court may direct a fact-finding enquiry in a registration dispute, but where the genuineness of two competing documents is in issue, fairness requires both documents to be examined by an unbiased authority before consequential action is taken.

---