The Inspector General of Registration vs Pioneer Engineering Syndicate

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
WA No. 275 of 2026
and
CMP.Nos. 21060 & 2523 of 2026
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Coimbatore.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar, Annur.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
M/s.Pioneer Engineering Syndicate,
Rep.by its Partner and Power Agent,
Uppalapatti Anjaneya Vara Prasad,
No.15, Road No.2, Castle Crest,
Castle Hills Colony, Masab Tank,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500 057
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 06.11.2025 passed by this Honble Court in WP.No. 41300/2025 and
allow the Writ Appeal.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
For Appellant(s): Mr. T. Gowthaman,
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr.Dominic S.David
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Abdul Quddhose J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 06.11.2025
passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.41300 of 2025.
2. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent
herein filed the writ petition challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated
rd
12.05.2025 (signed on 14.05.2025) issued by the 3 respondent and also the
nd
order dated 18.09.2025 passed in the appeal by the 2 respondent.
rd
3. In the aforesaid refusal check slip dated 12.05.2025 issued by the 3
nd
respondent as well as in the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the 2
respondent, the respondent’s right to register the general power of attorney has
been rejected on the ground there are discrepancies found in the parent
documents produced by the respondent herein with regard to the ownership and
for the non-production of the original document. Aggrieved by the same, the
respondent herein filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court in
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
W.P.No.41300 of 2025. In the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, the learned
single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the
rd
impugned refusal check slip issued by the 3 respondent as well as the
nd rd
impugned order of the 2 respondent and had directed the 3 respondent to
register the deed of irrevocable general power of attorney dated 11.04.2025
presented by the respondent immediately, upon re-presentation of the same by
the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by
the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.41300 of 2025, this writ appeal
has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants
drew the attention of this Court to the following documents produced by the
respondent before the registering authorities at the time of presentation of the
general power of attorney for registration:
st
a) The 1 Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1974;
nd
b) The 2 Partnership Deed dated 31.01.1979;
rd
c) The 3 Partnership Deed dated 05.09.1992.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants also
drew the attention of this Court to the firm registration certificate issued by the
state of Telangana in favour of the partnership firm (respondent) and would
submit that earlier, the partnership firm was registered in the state of Tamil
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
Nadu, whereas all of a sudden, it has now been registered in Telangana, which
creates suspicion in the minds of the registering authority. Learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the appellants would also submit that within 5
days from the date of registration of the partnership firm in the state of
Telangana, a board resolution is said to have been passed by the firm,
authorising two partners only to execute and register the power of attorney
executed for the sale of the partnership firm’s property. Therefore, he would
submit that only due to the aforesaid discrepancies found from the documents
produced by the respondent, the appellants refused to register the power of
attorney presented by the respondent for registration.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to
the grounds of appeal filed by the respondent before the Appellate Authority
(District Registrar) and would submit that full particulars have been furnished
by the respondent in the said appeal. He would submit that only due to the
death and retirement of some of the partners in the partnership firm, a deed of
re-constitution of partnership was executed on 19.10.2022 under which the two
partners were the only partners of the partnership firm. He would also submit
that a proper resolution was passed by the partnership firm authorising the two
partners to execute the Power of Attorney for the sale of the property belonging
to the partnership firm. He would also submit that the registering authority does
not have power to adjudicate the title of the property and since the respondent
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
has produced all the relevant documents, the registering authority cannot refuse
registration of the power of attorney presented by the respondent for
registration. He would also further submit that in the civil proceedings initiated
by the partnership firm seeking for the recovery of money against TWAD
Board, it has been recognised through arbitration proceedings, that two partners,
who had presented the power of attorney for registration, were the authorised
partners, who have represented the interest of the partnership firm (respondent).
Discussion:
7. As seen from the reasons given by the appellants, both the impugned
rd
refusal check slip issued by the 3 respondent as well as in the appeal in the
nd
order passed by the 2 respondent, only on mere suspicion, the appellants have
refused to register the general power of attorney presented by the respondent for
registration. Section 22-B of the Registration Act 1908, empowers the
Registering Officer to refuse the registration of fraudulent, illegal or disputed
documents including the forged papers, transactions prohibited by law and
properties attached by a competent authority.
8. Under Section 22-B of the Registration Act, the Registering Officials
can refuse registration under the following grounds:
(a) Forged documents: Sub-Registrar can reject an instrument
identified as fake or forged.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
(b) Prohibited transactions: A transfer barred by any Central or
State legislation cannot be registered.
(c) Attached properties: Any sale, gift or lease of immovable
properties attached provisionally or permanent by a court,
tribunal or statutory authority.
(d) State notifications: Any additional clause on the documents
specified by the respective State Governments through an official
notification.
9. A suspicion of forgery can be conclusively established only by a civil
Court as proving forgery requires concrete evidence, original documents and
clear proof of fraudulent intent. In cases of forgery, there may be a requirement
for obtaining handwriting or forensic expert which only a civil court can direct
and not a registering authority. Forgery also involves the element of dishonest
intent. To find out whether there is an intention to deceive, it also requires oral
and documentary evidence. The Civil Court alone has the power to analyse the
oral and documentary evidence in order to adjudicate whether a party has
committed the act of forgery/fraud or not. In the case on hand, merely based on
suspicion and only on a prima facie consideration of the documents, the
registering authority has refused to register the general power of attorney
presented by the respondent for registration by exercising power under Section
22-B of the Registration Act.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
10. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in R.Kathirvel Vs. the
Inspector General of Registration [2024 (4) LW 110], has struck down Section
77-A of the Registration Act as unconstitutional. Section 77-A of the
Registration Act had earlier empowered the registering authority to cancel
registered documents, if the registering authority is of the opinion that the said
registered documents are fraudulent documents. A Division Bench of this Court
in the aforesaid decision held that only a Civil Court can adjudicate as to
whether any registered document is a fraudulent document or not.
11. The aforesaid view is also accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and Others reported in (2026) 2 SCC 696
on the ground that the Civil Court alone can adjudicate the title of any property
as the said adjudication requires oral and documentary evidence, which the
registering authority does not have the power to analyse.
12. Section 22-B gives the registration officials the power to refuse the
registration of forged or prohibited documents upfront, whereas Section 77-A
(prior to it being deemed as unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this
Court), was designed to give District Registrars the power to cancel documents
already registered if they violated Section 22-A or 22-B. Section 22-B acts as a
shield before registration by enabling the Sub- Registrar to reject bogus, forged
or legally prohibited transactions, whereas 77-A, prior to its repeal from the
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
statute book, acted as a corrective tool after registration, empowering the
District Registrar to conduct an enquiry and cancel a registered document found
to be fraudulent contrary to Section 22-A and 22-B. Section 77-A of the Act
was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kathirvel's case , for
conferring excessive quasi-judicial powers on executive officials to adjudicate
civil title and property disputes. The same principle applied by the Division
Bench of this court in Kathirvel's case for testing the vires of section 77-A of
the Registration Act, will have to be applied to Section 22-B of the Act as well.
Only based on mere suspicion, the appellants have refused to register the
General Power of Attorney presented by the respondent for registration. There
is no undisputed and conclusive evidence available for coming to the conclusion
that the Power of Attorney presented by the respondent for registration will fall
under any of the categories of illegal documents provided under Section 22-B of
the Registration Act.
13. The learned single Judge has rightly directed the Registration
Department to register the general power of attorney presented by the
respondent for registration through the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed
in W.P.No.41300 of 2025. However, in order to protect the interest of the
appellants, in case in the near future there is a finding rendered by a competent
Civil Court or by any statutory authority that the respondent is not having title
over the subject property and the partners, who have passed a Board Resolution
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
are not competent to act on behalf of the partnership firm, we deem it fit to
direct the respondent to execute a letter of indemnity in favour of the
Registration Department for registering their power of attorney presented for
registration.
14. In the near future, if a competent Court of law or any statutory
authority declares that the respondent or any of the partners do not have the
authority to present the general power of attorney or any other document for
registration, then to secure the interest of the Appellants, the respondent has to
be directed by this Court to execute a letter of indemnity agreeing to indemnify
the appellants for whatever losses suffered by them and also permit the
registering authority to cancel the registration of the subject Power of Attorney
forthwith.
15. For the foregoing reasons, we deem it fit to modify the impugned
order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 06.11.2025 in
W.P.No.41300 of 2025 by issuing the following directions:
a) The respondent is directed to re-present the Irrevocable
rd
Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 executed by them with the 3
respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. On the re-presentation of the said deed of
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney within the stipulated time,
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
rd
the 3 respondent is directed to register the Irrevocable General
Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 re-presented by the
respondent for registration, after obtaining the letter of indemnity
from the respondent and its partners which has to be satisfaction of
rd
the 3 appellant and the said letter of indemnity should make it
clear that in case in the near future, any competent Court of law or
any other statutory authority declares the respondent herein or its
partners do not have the authority to present the General Power of
rd
Attorney dated 11.04.2025 for registration, the 3 appellant is
empowered to cancel the General Power of Attorney referred supra
forthwith without prior notice to the respondent.
b) The respondent and its partners are directed to submit a
rd
letter of indemnity with the 3 appellant, simultaneously, along
with re-presentation of the said Irrevocable General Power of
Attorney dated 11.04.2025 for re-presentation.
c) The aforesaid registration of the Irrevocable General
Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2025 executed by the respondent
rd
shall be completed by the 3 appellant, subject to the fulfilment of
the requirement to execute a letter of indemnity by the respondent
within a period of three days from the date of fulfilment of the
conditions imposed by this Court as stated supra.
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
16. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(A.Q.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.)
01-09-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes
KKN
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Coimbatore.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar, Annur.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )

2026:MHC:3667
WA No. 275 of 2026
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
AND
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
KKN
WA No. 275 of 2026
01-09-2026
p
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 06:34:49 pm )