Judgment 1. Being aggrieved over the withholding of the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 17.4.2013 for registration, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to release the said sale deed forthwith. 2. According to the petitioner, he entered into a sale deed dated 17.04.2013 in respect of a property in T.S.No. 19 (O.S.No. 158/1 part) measuring 3830 sq.ft. situated at Block No.6, Saligramam, Chennai with one Mr. S.N. Padmanaban on one part and with 1. Kalaiarasan 2. Gunasekaran 3. Surya 4. Rajeswari 5. Sivasangari 6. Jayanthi 7. Jaiganesh 8. Karthick and 9. Thenmozhi represented by their Power of Attorney Agent, Mr. R. Dineshbabu on the second part. The total sale consideration for the transaction was Rs.1,25,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner by way of a demand draft and also by cash to the vendors. The sale deed had a guideline value of Rs.1,72,35,000/- and stamps were paid for Rs.12,06,450/- and a sum of Rs.1,72,350/- was paid towards registration fee and the document was presented before the third respondent herein for registration, which was assigned with registration number, i.e. 2558 of 2013 on the very same day. 3. While so, after a month, the third respondent issued a pending number to the said document, without assigning any reasons and did not return the sale deed after registering the same. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a letter, dated 22.5.2013 stating that a release deed in Document No. 7020 of 2011 dated 01.12.2011 given by Dhanaselvi and other in favour of vendor of the petitioner, namely, S.N. Padmanaban, was a forged document and thereby, the second respondent by proceedings, dated 10.10.2012 held that the sale deeds executed in Document Nos. 742 and 750 of 2012 pursuant to the said forged release deed, are not valid in law. The second respondent relied on the orders passed by the first respondent, dated 03.11.2011, which according to the petitioner, were stayed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 26019 to 26021 of 2012 even before the second respondent passed by the above said orders. 4. It is also stated that the so-called forged release deed pertaining to the property situate in T.S.No.14, measuring 0.00.29.5 Ares and not the subject matter of the sale deed which pertains to the property situate in T.S. No. 19, measuring 0.35.56 Ares, which was withheld by the third respondent. 4. It is also stated that the so-called forged release deed pertaining to the property situate in T.S.No.14, measuring 0.00.29.5 Ares and not the subject matter of the sale deed which pertains to the property situate in T.S. No. 19, measuring 0.35.56 Ares, which was withheld by the third respondent. Therefore, relying upon the orders of the first and second respondent, withholding the sale deed by the third respondent is illegal since the order of the first respondent has been stayed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 5. A detailed counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, wherein, while disputing the averments made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has indulged in fraudulent activity of creating false document with a view to grab the property of the 4th respondent, against which, criminal proceedings were already initiated and pending. The petitioner has suppressed all the material facts and filed the present writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed in limine. According to the 4th respondent, he purchased a housing plot measuring 400 sq.ft., bearing Plot No, 27, situated at Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani, forming part of Survey No. 158, Saligramam village in the name of his wife, Mrs. N. Saraswathi under a registered sale deed dated 27.3.1961 from the original owner K.M. Lakshmanan. On 22.2.2001, his wife passed away, leaving the 4th respondent and her three sons and two daughters as legal heirs. While so, the 4th respondent did not visit the property during the year 2011-12 and when he visited the property on 14.2.2012, he found some third party encroached his property by putting up a thatched shed. On verification of the encumbrance certificate, he came to know that the names of one Dhanalakshmi and 7 others were mentioned. According to the 4th respondent, the said persons had committed forgery and got registered a fabricated release deed dated 1.12.2011 with the help of officials of the Sub Registrar Office and he was not even furnished certified copies of the so-called registered documents. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint and got registered the case against the above said persons after obtaining the orders in Crl.O.P.No. 140039 of 2012. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint and got registered the case against the above said persons after obtaining the orders in Crl.O.P.No. 140039 of 2012. 6. The 4th respondent also made a complaint to the Inspector General of Registration about the forgery and illegal activities committed by the above said persons in connivance with the officials of the Sub Registrar Office, who already conducted a detailed enquiry and passed orders on 2.4.2013 directing the concerned to initiate prosecution against the persons who committed forgery and fraud. In the mean time, the above said persons again have colluded with each other and created a false and forged sale deed dated 17.4.2013 with lessor market value. In such circumstances, after taking into consideration of the same, the third respondent has rightly withheld the document, which is neither irregular nor illegal in order to interfere with the same. Hence, the 4th respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when the document has been presented for registration after complying with all the requirements thereof, withholding the document on the ground that the petitioner has to establish the title over the property by producing the original document before him, per se illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act. He would also contend that the Registering Authority is not vested any power under the Act, to conduct a roving enquiry regarding the title and ownership. He pointed out that if at all the 4th respondent disputes title over the property, those disputes could be decided only by a Civil Court and not by the officials of the Registration Department. The learned counsel also contended that when the document was intended for registration on payment of stamp duty, there is not no power for the registering authority to retain the document. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon a decisions reported in ‘Rajambal versus The Inspector General (Registration), Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2012-2-L.W. 873 = 2012 (2) CTC 289 and in ‘Ramaswamy versus The Inspector General of Registrations and others, reported in ‘2003-4-L.W.319.’ 8. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon a decisions reported in ‘Rajambal versus The Inspector General (Registration), Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2012-2-L.W. 873 = 2012 (2) CTC 289 and in ‘Ramaswamy versus The Inspector General of Registrations and others, reported in ‘2003-4-L.W.319.’ 8. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would contend that the vendor of the petitioner and others including the petitioner have committed forgery and impersonation and fabricated the documents and presented the same for registration which was rightly withheld by the third respondent pursuant to the orders of the first and second respondents on the complaint made by the 4th respondent to the Inspector of general of Registration and as against the petitioner and others, criminal proceedings were also initiated and pending. He stated that the petitioner has not come forward with the clean hands and his case is not genuine. 9. The learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would contend that in order to prevent the fraudulent registration, it is the duty of the Sub Registrars to verify the previous original documents and other revenue records to ascertain the right over the property. So far as the present case is concerned, already the property was registered in the name of the deceased wife of the 4th respondent and the so-called release deed said to have been projected by the petitioner and others is alleged to be a forged and created by impersonation and in such circumstances, since the respondent found that the petitioner has no right over the property, the document came to be withheld by the 3rd respondent and as such, no infirmity could be found and the writ petition deserves dismissal. 10. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel and Addl. Government Pleader for the 4th respondent and respondents 1 to 3 respectively and perused the entire documents/ 11. By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (in short, ‘the Act’), the Registrars and Sub-Registrars are appointed by the State Government. The scope of the power of the Registrar and Sub-Registrar while examining a document presented for registration, is specifically envisaged under Sections 34 and 52 of the Act, which read as under: “34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer. The scope of the power of the Registrar and Sub-Registrar while examining a document presented for registration, is specifically envisaged under Sections 34 and 52 of the Act, which read as under: “34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer. (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no documents shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: PROVIDED that, if owning to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered. (2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times. (3) The registering officer shall thereupon- (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed; (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. (4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub-section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate. (5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders. “52. Duties of registering officers when document presented. (1)(a) The day, hour and place of presentation, and the signature of every person presenting document for registration, shall be endorsed on every such document at the time of presenting it; (b) a receipt for such document shall be given by the registering officer to the person presenting the same; and (c) subject to the provisions contained in section 62, every document admitted to registration shall without unnecessary delay be copied in the book appropriated therefore according to the order of its admission. (2) All such books shall be authenticated at such intervals and in such manner as is from time to time prescribed by the Inspector-General. Section 82 of the Act prescribes imposition of penalty against those who intentionally makes false statements, delivers false copies or translations and false impersonation. It reads as under: “82. Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment whoever- (a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (b) intentionally delievers to a registering officer, in any proceeding under section 19 or section 21, a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or (c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presented any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (d) abets anything made punishable by this Act; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Section 83 of the Act confers statutory power upon the Registering Officers to file criminal case against the persons who are involved in fraudulent registration through impersonation or other means as envisaged in Section 82. It reads as under: “83. Registering officer may commence prosecutions. (1) A prosecution of any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permissions of the Inspector-General, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed. (2) Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any court or officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the second class. 12. (2) Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any court or officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the second class. 12. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the above provisions would explicit that the powers conferred to the Registering Authority only to register the document presented before him on examination of the said document and on his satisfying himself with regard to identity of the persons appearing before him for executing the said document and no powers conferred to the Registering Authority to verify whether the person conveying the property has valid right and title over the property which is the subject matter of registration and it is beyond his authority and competence to attend to issues arising on the ground of right and title over the property and he cannot probe into the matter as regards the transactions alleged to have been fraudulently and forged registered. Section 83 of the Act confers powers on the Registering Authority to file criminal case against the persons who are involved in fraudulent registration through impersonation or other means, whenever a complaint in this regard is made by the parties. Section 82 of the Registration Act provides for the grounds for penal action under Section 83 of the Act and the quantum of punishment for such offences. The purport of incorporating Sections 82 and 83 of the Act is primarily to punish the persons who are involved in getting registration of the documents by playing fraud through impersonation and by giving false admissions or statements and false documents. 13. It is well settled law that even quasi-judicial and administration authorities have inherent powers to recall their orders or proceedings at a later stage if they are apprised that such orders or proceedings were obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. In fact, if a person sells away the property belonging to other, it would certainly be fraud on the statute and it would be adding insult to injury, if such person is asked to got to civil Court and get the relief. (‘Indian Bank versus Satyam Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (5) SCC 550 ’). 14. In fact, if a person sells away the property belonging to other, it would certainly be fraud on the statute and it would be adding insult to injury, if such person is asked to got to civil Court and get the relief. (‘Indian Bank versus Satyam Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (5) SCC 550 ’). 14. Though the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is acceptable as the decisions of this Court and other High Courts has supported to his contention, that the Registering Authority cannot verify the title and ownership of the property and need not enquire into the same while registering a document, however, it is quite ridiculous to allow the Registering Authority to entertain even the fraudulent transactions which prima facie shows that the parties are involved and paying fraud in getting the registration of the documents. To put it differently, if two parties came and presented a document to the Registering Authority regarding a sale transaction which pertains to a public property or the property over which the Registering Authority has knowledge on verification of relevant records relating to the said property and if he is satisfied that the persons are playing fraud by presenting false documents and statements and if the Registering Authority has allowed the said transaction on the ground that he is not having any authority to probe into title and ownership of the property, it would certainly thwart the entire Act itself. 15. Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Registering Authority can certainly object the same and withhold the said documents. It does not mean that the Registering Authority is empowered to enquire into the validity of all the documents. It is made clear that if the Registering Authority, on prima facie verification of the relevant records and particulars thereof, comes to subjective satisfaction that there is a fraud taken place, he can certainly object it by withholding the documents by assigning reasons thereof and should bring the same to the notice of the Inspector General for Registration and also take steps to initiate criminal proceedings against those persons. Further, the Registering Authorities are empowered even to recall their orders or proceedings at a later stage if they are apprised that such orders or proceedings were obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. Further, the Registering Authorities are empowered even to recall their orders or proceedings at a later stage if they are apprised that such orders or proceedings were obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. Generally, the people would like to get their valuable transactions registered because they believe that the registration of their transactions would get a legal sanctity. If all the transactions including fraudulent transactions are taken place, there would be no meaning in getting the registration of the documents. It is very unfortunate to note that the role of the Sub-Registrar is very limited and restricted to the work of registering the documents alone except to consider the objections raised invoking Sections 34(3) and 35 read with Rule 55 of the Act, in and by which, a duty is cast upon the Sub Registrars to consider objections raised on the ground that the parties appearing before them are not the persons they profess to be or that the documents are forged or that the representative/agent/assignee has no right to appear in that capacity or that the existing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration or that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or lunatic. 16. As far as the present case is concerned, admittedly, criminal proceedings have been issued against the petitioner and others who are involved in the transaction which was alleged as a fraudulent one. Since the petitioner made a complaint to the Inspector General of Registration, who in turn has conducted a detailed enquiry and directed the Registering Authority to initiate prosecution against the persons who committed forgery and fraud, by invoking Section 83 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above facts which would prima facie establish that the petitioner and others were allegedly involved in a fraudulent transaction and having regard to the same, as the Registering Authority has rightly withheld the said document, I am of the considered view that the said action of the third respondent in withholding the document is not illegal and the same cannot be faulted with in order to interfere with the same and therefore, the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. 17. The original sale deed Document No.899/61, dated 27.3.1996 pertains to the property which is the subject matter of the writ, is favouring the 4th respondent’s wife Mrs. N. Saraswathi. 17. The original sale deed Document No.899/61, dated 27.3.1996 pertains to the property which is the subject matter of the writ, is favouring the 4th respondent’s wife Mrs. N. Saraswathi. From a perusal of the layout plan filed by the 4th respondent, it is clear that the property belongs to the 4th respondent’s wife and after her demise on 22.2.2001, the said property was devolved upon her husband, the fourth respondent and her children. The release deed, dated 1.12.2011 executed at Sub-Registrar Office, Virugambakkam in respect of the property belonging to 4th respondent’s family, the sale agreement, dated 10.2.2012 for the said property and another sale agreement, dated 13.2.2012 in respect of the very same property even though bearing document numbers, are clearly forged by the petitioner. The schedule mentioned at page Nos.5, 54 and 55 of the typed set of papers filed by the 4th respondent clearly shows that the property belonging to Mrs. N. Saraswathi, wife of the 4th respondent. It is really shocking as to how these kind of forged documents being created in the office of the Sub Registrars and no doubt, it is only with the help of the officials of the Sub-Registrar office. Therefore, it is a clear case of land grabbing attempted by the petitioner by presenting forged documents. Unfortunately, in our country there is no stringent law to cut off the hands of the persons who are indulged in fabricating and forging the documents. If the laws are so rigid and deterrent, the criminals cannot dare enough to indulge in the illegal activities like the present case on hand, wherein, the officials of the Sub-Registrar Office were hand in glove in helping the criminals to usurp and loot the properties of the innocents. 18. In Islamic countries, horrifying punishment of cutting hands and chopping off fingers of even committing petty thefts is implemented. According to the Holy Qur? An, theft is haraam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the thief because he is a corrupt element in society, and if he is left unpunished, his corruption will spread and infect the body of the Ummah (nation). He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘May Allaah curse the thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, or steals a rope and has his hand cut off.’ (al-Bukhaari, al-Hudood, 6285). He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘May Allaah curse the thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, or steals a rope and has his hand cut off.’ (al-Bukhaari, al-Hudood, 6285). I came across an article that Iran country has unveiled its latest innovation in criminal punishment – a machine that cuts off the fingers of thieves and it is being used for cutting off the fingers of the culprits by a Court of shiraz. For having committed forgery, this court is of the view that such a stringent punishment of chopping of fingers should be awarded to the petitioner. But there is no law to that effect in our country. 19. It is quite surprising to note that having indulged in such illegal activity by forging the document and having presented before the Registering Authority and when it has been rightly withheld by the authority, the petitioner had shown audacity to come forward with the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to release the document and such act of the petitioner is highly deprecated and warranted imposition of heavy costs, not less than a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. This Court cannot remain as a silent spectator and shall certainly deal with the persons like the petitioner who indulged in illegal activities with iron hands. This Court hopes and expects that the concerned Court where the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and pending, should conduct the speedy trial and award maximum sentence of punishment in the event of charges proved against the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed as devoid of merits with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). The Registry is directed to draft a decree against the petitioner for recovery of above said sum from the petitioner and after recovery of the said amount, issue cheques each for Rs.25,000/-to i) the Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai; ii) Government Higher Secondary School for the Blind, Karaiyan Chavadi, Poonamallee, Chennai56; iii) Vidya Sagar (Formerly the Spastics Society of India), No.1, Ranjit Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085 and iv) YRG Centre for AIDS Research and Education, Chennai. The said exercise shall be carried out by the Registry as expeditiously as possible, not less than one month from the date of recovery of the amount and report the compliance to this Court. Consequently, connected MP is closed.