Madras High Court
P.S.Rajulu vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 14 September, 2015
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.09.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P(MD)No.16609 of 2015 P.S.Rajulu : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Registrar, District Registration Office (South), Palace Road, Madurai District. 3.The Sub-Registrar, Mahal Sub-Registrar Office (South), Palace Road, Madurai District. 4.The Joint Registrar, Palanganatham Joint Registrar Office, Madurai. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2015 and to conduct the enquiry to take necessary action based on the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by Inspector General of Registration and to cancel the Fraudulent Power Deeds, Sale Deeds and Partition Deeds mentioned in the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2015 within a stipulated time as may be fixed by this Honourable Court. !For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Government Advocate :O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2015 and to conduct enquiry to take necessary action based on the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by Inspector General of Registration and to cancel the fraudulent power deeds, sale deeds and partition deeds mentioned in his representation dated 31.08.2015 within a stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing in Door No.8, Nagasamy Compound, Radhakrishnan Street Colony, Thirunagar at Madurai. The properties in Survey No.372/1A, having an extent of 1 acre 65 cents, situate at Avaniyapuram, Madurai District originally belonged to his grandfather namely Chinna Kuppusamy, as per the registered partition deed vide document No.457/1907. His grandfather had two wives. One Subbaiyer and one Sundarama Iyer (who is the father of the petitioner) are the legal heirs of the said Chinna Kuppusamy, through his first wife. One Rengasamy is also one of the legal heirs of the said Chinna Kuppusamy, through his second wife. His grandfather partitioned the above said properties in the year 1920 as per the registered partition deed vide document No.937/1920. As per the said partition, the above said three sons had been allotted equal shares in A schedule, B schedule and C schedule respectively. The said Rengasamy was a minor, aged about 4 years old at the time of partition of the properties and he had a valid title in Survey No.372/1A, (C schedule) having an extent of 1 acres 65 cents as per the above said partition deed. After the demise of his grandfather, his elder son namely Subbaiyer had maintained all his properties and took administration of the joint family. The said Subbaiyer had no issues. He also died. After his demise, the petitioner's father namely Sundarama Iyer had taken charge of entire properties and also the administration of joint family. Thereafter, the said Rengasamy got married and after the said marriage, the petitioner's father Mr.Sundarama Iyer was not feeling well. At that time, the petitioner and his elders brothers were minors. Hence, his father Sundarama Iyer handed over the entire administration to the said Rengasamy. Subsequently, due to some psychiatric problem, the petitioner's father went somewhere leaving the petitioner and his brothers under the care of said Rengasamy.
3.It is the further case of the petitioner that by using this situation, the said Rengasamy made encumbrance in the properties, which were partitioned in the year 1920. As per the said partition deed, the said Rengasamy had only one share i.e C schedule property, but he had taken over the charge on the A & B Schedule also. Moreover, in the year 1993, the said Rengasamy executed a Will with regard to the properties in A , B and C schedule by showing the partition deed registered in the year 1920. He had only one property in patta No.1160 that is in survey No.372/1A having an extent of 1 acre 65 cents. He executed a Will dated 07.06.1993 relating to the above properties in patta No.1160 and also for some other five properties, which are included in A & B schedules. In the said Will, it has also been stated that as per the UDR patta No.1388, the properties were belonging to Subbiyer, Sundrama Iyer and Rengasamy and the same was included in patta NO.104. Since Subbaiyer had died, A, B & C schedule properties were equally shared among Sundarama Iyer and Rengasamy. After three years from the date of registration of the will, i.e on 11.05.1996, the said Rengasamy died. After his demise, by suppressing the said Will, the legal heirs of the said Rengasamy created two forged general power of attorneys in their favour. They mutated the patta No.1160 to patta No.1666 and sub-divided the Sy.No.372/1A as Sy.Nos.372/A1, 372/A12, 372/A13, 372/A14, 372/1A5 and registered a partition deed vide document No.735/1999 dated 15.12.1999. One of the legal heirs of the said Rengasamy, by way of creating a forged Schedule 1, on 15.12.1999, executed two sale deeds to the extent of 23 1/2 cents and 20 1/4 cents respectively. All the illegal activities carried by the legal heirs of the said Rengasamy came to light only in the year 2009. After that, the petitioner filed a petition in Appeal No.9160 of 2009. After perusing the records and submissions, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order to cancel the above said pattas and further directed the Revenue authorities to maintain the patta as it is in patta No.104 and also granted a patta in No.5637.
4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's elder brother's son namely Swaminathan, S/o.Kuppusamy filed a petition before this Court seeking a direction to register a FIR on the legal heirs of Rengasamy and this Court also directed the Avaniyapuram Police to register a case against the legal heirs of Rengasamy and a case in Cr.No.649 of 2014 was also registered against them.
5.Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that encumbrance created by the legal heirs of the said Rengasamy on his properties should be removed. For this purpose, he approached the respondents 2 to 4 in the month of January 2015, requesting to cancel the following documents:
i. General power of attorney in Doc.No.17/1997 dated 03.01.1997 on the file of the Mahal Sub-Registrar Office.
ii) General power of attorney in Doc.No.3115/1997 dated 22.12.1997 and Doc.No.1220/1999 dated 15.02.1999 on the file of the Joint Registrar, Palanganatham.
iii) Doc.No.1220/1999 dated 05.03.1999.
iv) Doc.No.1221/1999 dated 05.03.1999.
v)Doc.No.6451/1999 dated 13.12.1999.
vi)Doc.No.6452/1999 dated 13.12.1999.
vii)Doc.No.2957/2001 dated 27.06.2001
viii)Doc.No.5446/2001 dated 27.06.2001
ix)Doc.No.5378/2005 dated 03.08.2005
x)Doc.No.2384/2009 dated 13.03.2009.
xi)Doc.No.2975/20099 dated 31.03.1999.
6.Even after perusing all the forged sale deeds and general power of attorneys and partition deeds, the respondents 2 to 4 have not come forward to take any steps to cancel the above documents. In this regard, the petitioner sent a detailed representation to the respondents on 31.08.2015. Even after receipt of the same, they did not take any steps. Hence, he has come forward with the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2015 and to conduct an enquiry and take necessary action based on the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the Inspector General of Registration and to cancel the above mentioned fraudulent power deeds, sale deeds and partition deeds.
7.Heard the submissions made on either side and I have carefully perused the materials available on record.
8.Considering the submissions made on either side, without going into the merits of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court is constrained to pass the following order:
The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 31.08.2015 in the light of the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all the necessary parties, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar, District Registration Office (South) Palace Road, Madurai District.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Mahal Sub-Registrar Office, (South) Palace Road, Madurai District.
4.The Joint Registrar, Palanganatham Joint Registrar Office, Madurai.
.