Madras HC declares fraud property settlement deed as void, tells sub-registrar to register order

CHENNAI: In a significant move, the Madras High Court has declared a fraudulently registered settlement deed of a property as void, while passing a direction for the sub-registrar office to register the court order so that such fraud entries in the future are automatically reversed.

The first-of-its-kind order was passed by the court as currently there are no provisions in the Registration Act that enable authorities to cancel entries made in the property record. The matter was raised when the court was looking into a batch of petitions moved by owners of 3.11 acres of land falling under the Alandur sub-registrar office.

Challenging the settlement deed registered in connection with the property owned by them, by a third party, the petitioners sought a court direction to the sub-registrar office to remove the fraudulent entry made in the property record.

In his order, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that there are no provisions in the Registration Act that enable officials to cancel fraudulent documents. "Usually, in such situations, expecting the parties to go before the civil court every time an illegal document is registered, makes it almost impossible for the real owner to deal with his own property .It is a known factor that proceedings initiated before the civil court does not come to an end that quickly... it’s a long-drawn journey," the judge noted.

"."

Arguing for the petitioners, advocate Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam submitted that the petitioners were fighting various civil suits over the ownership of the property since 1979 and succeeded in every suit.

How the property rights were handled
While the civil courts have declared the petitioners as rightful owners of the property, father of one D Suresh managed to get a patta for the property, and managed to get the necessary correction in the Town Survey Field Register, Abudu Kumar said. However, defying the court orders, the father of Suresh executed a settlement deed in favour of his son with respect to the property. The court allowing the plea ruled in the favour of the petitoners