Fraud vitiates registered conveyances, and a sale deed executed without title may be cancelled by the registering authority.

A registered sale deed procured by fraud may be cancelled by the registering authority where the executants had no subsisting title or authority to convey the property. The court noted that an earlier gift deed had already validly transferred the property and remained unchallenged, so the later vendors lacked legal capacity to execute the sale deed. After enquiry, notice, and consideration of objections, the authority found fraud on the registering authority and treated the impugned transaction as non est. Applying the principle that fraud vitiates even solemn acts, the court upheld administrative cancellation of the sale deed and declined to require the true owner to pursue civil litigation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the registering authority had power to cancel a registered sale deed where the transaction was found to have been procured by fraud and the executants had no legal authority to convey the property.

Analysis: The property had already been validly gifted earlier, and that gift deed was neither challenged nor displaced. On that footing, the persons who later executed the sale deed had no subsisting title or authority to transfer the property. The complaint led to an enquiry, notice to the parties, consideration of objections, and a finding that the sale deed had been executed by persons lacking authority and that fraud had been practised on the registering authority. The Government Order dated 13.08.2013 was treated as reiterating the settled principle that an authority may undo an act obtained by fraud, because fraud vitiates even solemn proceedings. The Court also relied on the principle that an administrative authority may rescind an order obtained by fraud and that a true owner need not be driven to civil litigation where the transfer itself is non est.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the sale deed was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---