Registering Authorities Can Cancel A Registered Deed Only In Case Of False Impersonation: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that a registered document could only be cancelled by the registering authorities only in case of false impersonation.
The Court noted that it is not open to the registering authority to cancel that registration even if its attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document and the aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document before the civil court.
The Bench of Justice Viju Abraham held, “Going by Section 83A, a registered document could be cancelled by the registration authorities, ie., Inspector General of Registration only on finding that someone has falsely personated another, and in such assumed character presented, admitted the execution and got registered any document by a registering officer and the existence of such a document is detrimental to the interest of another person. Therefore, the Registration Act, 1908, only gives power to the registering authorities to cancel a registered deed only in case of false impersonation.”
Advocate Sindhu Santhalingam appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Government Pleader Deepa V. and Advocate Sreekanth K.M. appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
The Petitioners approached the High Court through Writ Petition seeking to quash the registered Will having a certain extent of properties. The Petitioner contended that the testatrix's husband had cancelled the Will executed by the testatrix and registered a new Will.
The Court relied on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. and others and held, “That once a document is registered, it is not open to the registering authority to cancel that registration even if its attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document and the aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document before the civil court. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Sivadasan v. Sub Registrar, Malappuram and others, 2019 (2) KLT OnLine 2095 and relying on the judgment in Satya Pal Anand’s case cited supra, this Court held that it is for the aggrieved party to approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs.”
The Court also said that the “instrument” referred to in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 also includes a Will and therefore the Petitioners if aggrieved by Will in question, must approach the competent civil court for cancellation of the same.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Mary Mohan Chacko and Ors. v. Inspector General, Department of Registration and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024: KER:18143)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocates Sindhu Santhalingam, A.D. Shajan, Abraham K George.
Respondents: Government Pleader Deepa V. and Advocate Sreekanth K.M.
