Madras High Court
A.Sathishkumar vs The Sub-Registrar on 2 August, 2024
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.2749 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.2749 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.3014 of 2019
A.Sathishkumar ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Tiruvannamalai.
2.Tmt.Vasantha ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority in
Order in B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and the consequential order of the
2nd respondent dated 04.12.2018 cancelling the registered Power of Attorney
Doc.No.202/2004 dated 27.10.2004 issued in favour of the petitioner and
quash the same and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Radha Goplaan
Senior Counsel
For R1 : Mr.P.Ananda Kumar
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/18
W.P.No.2749 of 2019
For R2 : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
for Mr.V.Arul
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority in Order in B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 04.12.2018, cancelling the registered Power of Attorney Doc.No.202/2004 dated 27.10.2004 issued in favour of the petitioner and quash the same.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the registered Power of Attorney was executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner vide Doc.No.204/2004 dated 26.10.2004. Thereafter, a complaint was given by the second respondent before the Chairman / Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, to revoke the General Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of the petitioner by the second respondent on 26.10.2004 vide Doc.No.202/2004 and sought legal action against the petitioner.
3. Learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 passed by the Chairman / Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, vide order in B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018, in which he has come to the conclusion that when the signatures made in the documents are viewed, it prima facie established the title of the 2nd respondent and the signature found in the Power of Attorney is indifferent from the signature of the 2nd respondent.
4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the above order passed by the Chairman / Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, is without jurisdiction and he has no such power to recommend the cancellation of the document to the first respondent, further directing the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, to enquire the complaint relating to the matter. It is further submitted that the Power of Attorney was executed on 26.10.2004 and the same was cancelled after 14 years, i.e., 04.12.2018 vide order passed by the first respondent and the same reads as follows:
@khtl;l rl;l gzpfs; Mizf;FG.
jpUtz;zhkiy Miz vz;/gp/807/18 ,d; go khtl;l Kjd;ik ePjpgjp mth;fs; gpwg;gpj;j Mizapd; go jpUtz;zhkiy 1 vz;/ ,iz rhh; gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l bghJ mjpfhu Mtzk; ,uj;J bra;J Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l epiyapy;
jpUtz;zhkiy 1 vz;/ ,iz rhh; gjpthsh;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 mYtyf 4 g[j;jf Mtz vz;/202/2004 ,uj;J bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ khtl;l Kjd;ik ePjpgjp mth;fspd; Miz ,izf;fg;gl;lJ/@
5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted by the Chairman / Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, before passing the order dated 26.10.2018, which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in view of the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2004, several documents have been executed and he has also produced one Correction Deed vide Doc.No.5961/2019 dated 17.06.2011.
7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent dated 15.03.2019 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder for better appreciation and understanding:
“7. With regard to Paras 7 & 8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent being a women is entitled to legal services as provided under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The chairman, District Legal Services Authority has entertained the complaint, examined https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 the complaint with the records available and ordered the 1st respondent to receive the application of the complainant for cancellation of Power of Attorney and pass appropriate orders for cancellation of the same. When the Principal is always having right to cancel the Power of Attorney without the consent of the agent, the order of the chairman or the act of the 1st respondent could not be contrary to any law. It is absolutely not necessary to give any opportunity to hear the Petitioner regarding Cancellation of Power of Attorney by the grantor of Power of Attorney. However the cancellation will take effect only in accordance with law. If the Petitioner has suffered any loss, he is having alternative remedy before the appropriate Civil Court. Further the Chairman has only directed the Superintendent of Police to enquire the complaint of the 2nd respondent which is not in any way illegal.”
8. The counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent in the year 2019.
9. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the General Power of Attorney in Doc.No.202/2004 dated 26.10.2004 was not executed by the second respondent and she has no knowledge, acquaintance whatsoever with the petitioner. The petitioner has dishonestly and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 fraudulently fabricated the false document by impersonating the second respondent with the intention of grabbing the subject matter property.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that as a matter of fact ever since the date of purchase of the property, the second respondent has not executed or registered any document whatsoever pertaining to the said property. Thereafter, the second respondent immediately lodged a complaint with the District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, vide R.No.1786/2018 dated 10.09.2018, seeking cancellation of the aforesaid forged Power of Attorney Deed and appropriate criminal action as against the petitioner for the serious offences committed by him.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that the said complaint lodged by the petitioner was taken on file as B.No.807/2018 and in the said proceedings, notice was duly sent to the petitioner from the District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, on 17.09.2018. However, the said notice was returned un-served on 20.09.2018 with the endorsement "No such person in the address". Subsequently, the District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai had sought clarification from the 1st respondent herein as to the course of action to be taken in view of documents fabricated by way of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 impersonation. In reply to the same, the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Tiruvannamalai had issued a letter dated 22.11.2018, clarifying that if upon enquiry by the Court, it is ordered that the said Power of Attorney Deed is null and void in view of impersonation committed, appropriate relief shall be rendered to the injured party.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, had passed an order dated 26.10.2018 in B.No.807/2018, thereby directing the 1st respondent to receive the petitioner's application for cancellation of the forged Power of Attorney Deed dated 26.10.2004, registered as Document No.202/2004, on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Tiruvannamalai, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and further directed the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, to enquire his complaint and initiate appropriate criminal action in accordance with law.
13. Learned counsel for the second respondent drew the attention of this Court to Sections 2(c), 10 and 12(c) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and he relied on the judgment of the First Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2992 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022 (P.Sunil alias Sunil Prakash Vs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009).
14. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
15. Having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, wherein it is stated that the Principal is always having right to cancel the Power of Attorney without the consent of the agent, the order of the chairman or the act of the 1st respondent could not be contrary to any law.
16. In the case on hand, the second respondent has sought cancellation of Power of Attorney only on the grounds of fraud, impersonation and fabrication. Hence, the 1st respondent is not correct in saying that the order of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, is not contrary to law.
17. At present, the issue to be decided in this writ petition is “whether the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, has got jurisdiction / power to entertain the complaint in regard to the alleged forged document under Sections 2(c), 10 and 12(c) of the Legal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 Services Authority Act, 1987”.
18. It is pertinent to extract Sections 2(c), 10 and 12(c) the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, which read as follows:
2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(c) “legal service” includes the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceeding before any court or other authority or tribunal and the giving of advice on any legal matter;
10. Functions of the District Authority.— (1) It shall be the duty of every District Authority to perform such of the functions of the State Authority in the District as may be delegated to it from time to time by the State Authority.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the functions referred to in sub-section (1), the District Authority may perform all or any of the following functions, namely:— 1[(a) coordinate the activities of the Taluk Legal Services Committee and other legal services in the District;]
(b) organize Lok Adalats within the District; and
(c) perform such other functions as the State Authority may 1*** fix by regulations.
12. Criteria for giving legal services.—Every person https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person is—
(c) a woman or a child;
a) According to Section 2(c) - “Legal Service” of the Act, the complaint given by the second respondent does not fall within the ambit of the Definition of 'legal service'. Hence, it cannot be entertained by the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai.
b) According to Section 10 - “Functions of the District Authority” of the Act, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the complaint of the petitioner.
c) Section 12(c) - “a woman or a child”.
The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is a woman and entitled to legal service according to the above Section 12(c) of the Act. Hence, under this Act, she can approach and give a complaint to the District Legal Service Authority.
19. This Court is not inclined to accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent for the reason that since the complainant does not come under the purview of the legal services and it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 is not relevant whether the complainant is a woman or not.
20. It is pertinent to extract the order passed by the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, vide B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and the same is extracted hereunder:
“The petitioner herein namley, Vasantha, wife of Ganegamoorthy of Sorakulathur Village written a complaint to submit before the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. but she presented before this authority along with another petition addressed to this authoriry for seeking legal action against the person namely A.Satheesh Kumar who registered a deed of power of attorney before the Sub-Registrar of Tiruvannamalai by impersonation in respect of her property situated at Inamkariyendhal, Tiruvannamalai District. In her complaint, she specifically alleged that the said satheesh kumar signed in the deed of power of attorney and registered before the Sub-Registrar Office Tiruvannamalai as if she signed said property for sale, etc.. in the documents and gave power of attoney to him for the said property for sale, etc. Though the petitioner seeking criminal action against the said satheesh kumar, she wants to cancell the said power of attorney which was registered and she seeks direction to the said registering authority for cancellation. So this authority sent a notice to the Sub Registrar of Tiruvannamalai to know the possibilities for cancellation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 The Sub-Registrar of Tiruvannamalai appeared before this authority and given a written reply, in which he have stated that there is rule for cancellation of documents when the documents were registered by forging and by impersonation and advised petitioner to file any application for cancellation of the said power of attorney.
The submitted copies of the documents and the alleged power of attorney and the signature made in the documents are viewed and it prima facie established the title of the petitioner and the signature found in the power of attorney is indifferent from the signature of the petitioner, so this authority having consideration over the complaint of the petitioner and her intention to cancel the deed of power of attorney and also the reply of the Sub Registrar would decide to pass certain direction to the officials for redress the complaint of the petitioner.
In result, this authority ordered the Sub-Register of Tiruvannamalai to receive the application of the petitioner for cancelation of Power of attorney in document No. 202/2004, dated 27-10-2004 registered in his office in respect of the scheduled mentioned property in accordance with the permitted rules and pass appropriate orders for cancellation the said document. Further this authority directs the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai to enquire the complaint related matter and if it necessary initiates appropriate criminal action against the said Satheesh Kumar.” In the order passed by the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 Tiruvannamalai, vide proceedings B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018, it is mentioned that the petitioner herein, namley, Vasantha, wife of Ganegamoorthy of Sorakulathur Village, written a complaint to submit before the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. but she presented before this authority along with another petition addressed to this authoriry for seeking legal action against the person, namely A.Satheesh Kumar. In the said order, the finding is that in the submitted copies of the documents and the alleged Power of Attorney, the signatures made in the documents, prima facie establish the title of the second respondent and the signature found in the Power of Attorney is indifferent from the signature of the second respondent.
In regard to this finding, this Court is unable to understand how the District Legal Services Authority has come to the conclusion that it is a forged signature. If at all there is any doubt regarding signature, reference must be made to a Forensic Expert and in this case, no such reference is made and the signatures were not examined by the Forensic Expert. On this ground, the finding of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, is erroneous and untenable.
In the impugned order itself, it is mentioned that the written complaint is to be submitted before the Superintendent of Police, but the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 petitioner (second respondent herein) / complainant has given a complaint addressed to the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, which cannot be a ground or reason to entertain the complaint when the Authority has no power or jurisdiction to entertain the same under the Act.
21. The District Legal Services Authority, has no power to recommend to the Sub-Registrar to cancel the Power of Attorney Deed executed and this apart, directing the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, to enquire the complaint relating to the matter and the same is also without jurisdiction.
22. In view of the above discussion of relevant provisions under the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, has no jurisdiction or power to entertain the complaint from the second respondent for cancellation of the Deed of General Power of Attorney and recommend to the first respondent / Sub-Registrar to cancel the same, which is untenable and unsustainable in law.
23. The ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 respondent W.P.No.2992 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022 (P.Sunil alias Sunil Prakash Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009) passed by the First Bench of this Court, is not applicable to the present case for the reason that there a challenge is made to the circular dated 17.11.2021 issued by the Registration Department, in which it is provided that a General Power of Attorney has to be revoked by the principal by execution of a revocation deed and the Sub-Registrar should not insist that the principal should intimate the agent regarding the revocation of the General Power of Attorney through telegram/letter.
24. In the present case, the cancellation or revocation is sought on the ground that the document is a fraudulent document and the same has been fabricated, manipulated and impersonated by the petitioner.
Hence, it is crystal clear and evident that the second respondent wanted to cancel or revoke the above said document only on the grounds that it had been fraudulently fabricated and impersonated by the petitioner. If at all the 2nd respondent wanted to cancel the Deed of General Power of Attorney, she could very well directly approach the Sub-Registrar, 1st respondent herein, to revoke or cancel instead of approaching the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai.
25. This Court at the time of admission of the writ petition, has granted an interim stay in W.M.P.No.3014 of 2019 in W.P.No.2749 of 2019 and the same is still in force as on date and it is not vacated by this Court.
26. Taking into consideration the above factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, in Order in B.No.807/2018 dated 26.10.2018 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 04.12.2018 cancelling the registered Power of Attorney Doc.No.202/2004 dated 27.10.2004 are liable to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed.
In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.08.2024 cda Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking Order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 To The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruvannamalai.
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
cda W.P.No.2749 of 2019 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/18 W.P.No.2749 of 2019 02.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/18