Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Subsequently, on 09.04.2018, 31.07.2018 and 09.11.2018, circulars were issued empowering the Registrar to conduct an enquiry and make an entry in Book I, if the document was found to be fraudulent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11. It is relevant to note these circulars are mostly issued under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. As alredy held that the powers conferred under Registration Act in Section 68(2) is only superintendence and control over the subordinates. Having such superintendence control, circular could not have been issued to hold an enquiry particularly in respect of alleged fraudulent transactions. It is easy for anyone to allege the transaction is a fraudulent transaction. But fraud has to be proved in the manner known to law. Fraudulent transaction and fraud have to be proved in a manner known to law. Only transaction falls within the category of fraud as defined under Section 17 of the Contract Act. Such transaction could be held as result of fraud.

For the purposes of this sub-section, no transfer made without consideration shall be deemed to have been made with intent to defraud by reason only that a subsequent transfer for consideration was made.”

14. The said fraudulent transfer is also voidable, at the most, such transfer has to be avoided within a period of limitation. Therefore, merely on the circular orders, the Registrar of District Registrar cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The word “fraud” is defined under Section 17 of the Contract Act, which would read as follows:

“17. “Fraud” defined.—“Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent , with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:-

(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;