2006 (6) TMI 541 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Confirms Petitioner's Land Ownership, Orders Inquiry into Fraudulent Power of Attorney and Sale Transactions.

G. Ayyakkonar Versus The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai and Ors.

The Madras HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming their ownership of the disputed land. The court identified fraudulent actions by the 6th ... - The case before the Madras High Court involved a dispute over the ownership and sale of land, specifically regarding the fraudulent execution of a power of attorney and subsequent sale deeds. The key issues considered by the court included the validity of the power of attorney, the responsibilities of registering officers under the Registration Act, and the appropriate actions to be taken in cases of fraud during registration.The petitioner claimed ownership of punja land and alleged that the 5th respondent colluded with the 6th respondent to execute a fraudulent power of attorney, leading to the sale of the petitioner's land to the 7th respondent. The 5th respondent admitted to not owning the land and stated that his signature on the power of attorney was obtained fraudulently by the 6th respondent. The petitioner sought direction from the court to prosecute the respondents and compel the registering authorities to take action.The court analyzed the provisions of the Registration Act, emphasizing the duties and powers of registering officers in verifying the authenticity of documents presented for registration. Section 17 of the Act mandates the registration of certain documents, while Section 32 stipulates that documents must be presented by individuals with a direct interest in the property. The court highlighted the importance of strict compliance with registration requirements to prevent fraud and forgery.Citing the case of Jambu Prasad vs. M.A. Alikhan, the court emphasized that unauthorized presentations for registration render the registration invalid. Section 33 of the Act addresses the recognition of power of attorney for registration purposes, with Section 34 outlining the necessary enquiries before registration, including verifying the identity of the executing parties.The court found that the petitioner was the rightful owner of the land, and the fraudulent actions of the 6th respondent were evident. Despite the 6th respondent's absence and the 7th respondent's involvement, the court held the registering officers accountable for neglecting their duty to investigate fraudulent activities during registration. The court directed the Inspector General of Registration to conduct a detailed enquiry and take necessary actions, including potentially cancelling the fraudulent documents and initiating proceedings against the responsible party.In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the registering authorities to investigate the fraud and take appropriate actions in accordance with the Registration Act. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding registration procedures to prevent fraud and protect property rights.