Registering Authority Cannot Usurp Powers Of Civil Court To Cancel Sale Deed: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender held that the registering authority cannot usurp the powers of the civil court and can only interfere if there is any apparent error. The court added that if there is any doubt regarding the civil rights of the parties, the registering authority should relegate the matter to the civil court.

“Only in the event of fraud apparent on record, the registering Authority can interfere, but, not otherwise. Therefore, the registering Authority is not empowered to usurp the power of the civil Court. Such exercise of powers act akin to the powers of the civil Court. Even it there is any iota of doubt regarding civil rights, the parties are to be relegated to the civil Court of law for the purpose of establishing their rights,” the court observed.

With respect to fraud, the court noted that there were threefold actions that could be taken in case of fraud. First, the aggrieved person may file a complaint and prosecute the persons under the criminal law. Second, the person can approach the civil court for establishing the civil rights. Third, the person can approach the competent authorities for cancelling the registered documents. The court, however, made it clear that the definition of fraud could not be expanded for adjudicating civil rights through administrative action.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the individuals challenging an order of a single judge through which the court had refused to interfere with the order of a District Registrar cancelling a sale deed on allegations of fraud.

The District Registrar had received complaints to nullify three sale deeds alleging fraud. The District Registrar entertained the complaint under Section 68(2) read with Section 75(4) of the Registration Act, conducted an enquiry and nullified the sale deeds.

When the same was challenged before the writ court, the court found that the transaction was fraudulent and, holding the sale deeds to be fraudulent, refused to interfere with the order of the District Registrar.

The court noted that since the parties had already filed a civil suit, an adjudication on the facts was not necessary.

The court further noted that Section 68(2) of the Act did not give powers to the Registrar to nullify a registered document. The court noted that the Inspector General of Registration, Puducherry, had issued a circular in 2021 with respect to registration of fraudulent documents. The court also noted that though the Registration Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2022) had given powers to the District Registrar to cancel a registered document under Section 77A, this provision was declared ultra vires by the High Court. The court thus concluded that the power to cancel the sale deed was not available to the District Registrar both in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.

The court underlined that only the civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the civil rights of the parties. The court held that when the District Registrar does not have the power to adjudicate the civil rights, it could not have cancelled the sale deeds.

The court held that when the District Registrar nullifies a sale deed through summary proceedings, it would violate the constitutional right to property of the parties, and such a right can be taken away only by an authority of law.

In the present case, since the civil suit was already pending, the court held that the district court had not only exceeded his power conferred under the Act but also exercised a power that was not available to it. The court also noted that the writ court had proceeded on the facts of the case, which it could not have done in a writ proceeding. The court thus set aside the order of the single judge.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. D. Ravichander

Counsel for Respondent: Dr. B. Ramasamy, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. S. Patrick

Case Title: Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

Case No: W.A.No.1016 of 2023