[S.83A Registration Act] Registration Authority Can Only Cancel Registered Documents In Cases Of False Impersonation: Kerala High Court

On analysing Section 83A of the Registration Act, Justice Viju Abraham stated that registered documents could be cancelled by registration authorities only on grounds of false impersonation for executing a will. 

“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”, stated the Court

The first petitioner's mother had registered a will in his favor. On the death of the mother, the testatrix's husband cancelled the old will and registered a new will in favour of the respondents who were their other children. The petitioners have thus approached the Court seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the registered new will.

The respondents contended that a writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging the validity of a will. It was also submitted that the testatrix's husband had ample powers to cancel the first will since the petitioners neglected to take care of them.

The Court stated that interpretation of the contents of the will regarding the power of the testatrix's husband to execute a new will were matters to be considered before a civil court and not in a writ proceeding.

Relying upon Apex Court decisions in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. and others (2016), Sivadasan v. Sub Registrar, Malappuram and others (2019), the Court stated that once a document was registered, the registering authority cannot cancel its registration even if some irregularity was committed during its registration. The Court stated that a competent civil court has jurisdiction to decide regarding the validity of a will challenged on such irregularities.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Sindhu Santhalingam, A.D.Shajan, Abraham K George

Counsel for Respondent: Government Pleader Deepa V, Advocate Sreekanth K M

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 171

Case title: Mary Mohan Chacko V Inspector General

Case number: WP(C) NO. 33749 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment