Madurai Bench upholds purposive interpretation of the life-certificate Circular, distinguishes the narrow view in M/s. Arihabt Foundations & Housing Ltd., and holds that registering officers must verify the principal’s signature under Sections 32–35; binding on registration authorities and persuasive in future property disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(MD)/8998/2025 of Jayanth Rhenius Vs The District Registrar |
| CNR | HCMD010393182025 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mrs Justice S. Srimathy |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Madurai Bench |
| Overrules / Affirms | Distinguishes M/s. Arihabt Foundations & Housing Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (21.02.2025) |
| Type of Law | Registration Act, 1908 / Writ under Article 226 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a life certificate unsigned by the principal—proved forged by forensic report—vitiates the sale deed as fraud “vitiates everything.” A purposive interpretation of the Registration Department’s Circular requires the principal’s signature on the life certificate to protect against fraud. Registering officers, under Sections 32–35, must compare the life-certificate signature with the power-of-attorney and may not register deeds based on clearly forged certificates. Sale deeds executed on that basis must be quashed and entries removed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner granted a general power of attorney in 2010 to the 3rd respondent. That agent registered two sale deeds in 2024 by submitting a forged life certificate. A forensic report in anticipatory-bail proceedings confirmed the forgery. The sub-Registrar had failed to verify the signature and registered the deeds. The High Court quashed the two sale deeds and directed removal of entries. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Overrules | The narrow interpretation in M/s. Arihabt Foundations & Housing Ltd. (21.02.2025) is distinguished. |
| Distinguishes | The approach in Ozone Homes Primate Ltd. is distinguished for failing to require signature verification of life certificates. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A forged or unsigned life certificate—even if the principal is alive—vitiates the sale deed as fraud.
- Registering officers must compare the life-certificate signature with the power-of-attorney and may not register deeds on the face of forgery.
- A purposive interpretation of the Registration Department’s Circular safeguards the principal’s interest against agent-fraud.
- Sale deeds executed by agents on forged life certificates are liable to be quashed and entries removed under Article 226.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The life certificate submitted to register the 2024 sale deeds was proved forged by forensic analysis; fraud vitiates everything.
- The Registration Department’s Circular mandating a life certificate aims to confirm the principal’s continued existence and proscribe fraud; its purposive interpretation mandates the principal’s signature.
- Earlier High Court orders (e.g., Arihabt Foundations) adopting a narrow scope are distinguished: the Circular must protect against misuse by agents.
- Under Sections 32–35 of the Registration Act, registering officers have a primary duty to examine authorizations and verify signatures on life certificates against the power-of-attorney.
- Sale deeds based on forgery must be set aside; the High Court quashed the deeds and ordered removal of entries from the register and encumbrance certificates.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Jayanth Rhenius)
- The 3rd respondent executed sale deeds using a forged life certificate that lacked the principal’s signature.
- The sub-Registrar failed to verify the life-certificate signature or notice of cancellation of the power of attorney.
- Sale deeds based on forgery must be declared void and quashed.
Respondents 1 & 2 (District Registrar & Sub-Registrar)
- The documents appeared complete and were presented by a competent agent under a subsisting power of attorney.
- Registering officers have no authority to conduct forensic verification absent apparent irregularity.
- Once registered, deeds cannot be cancelled by the registering authority; only courts may set them aside after proof.
Respondent 3 (Agent / 3rd Respondent)
- He is a formal party with no personal gain; disputes over life certificates pertain to third parties (Dhanapal, Ezhancheziyan).
- Earlier sales (2018) without principal’s signature were undisputed, suggesting petitioner’s collusion.
- Criminal investigation should cover all transactions; the writ petition is premature.
Factual Background
Jayanth Rhenius granted a general power of attorney to Respondent 3 in November 2010. The agent executed sale deeds in April and December 2018 and July 2024 without obtaining the principal’s signature on mandatory life certificates. A forensic report, obtained during anticipatory-bail proceedings, confirmed the 2024 life-certificate signature was forged. The petitioner revoked the power of attorney, lodged an FIR, and challenged registration of the 2024 sale deeds by writ petition under Article 226.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 32–35, Registration Act, 1908: impose duties on registering officers to examine documents, verify that they are executed by competent persons, and inspect authorizations.
- Registration Department Circular on life certificates: requires production of a life certificate signed by the principal to ensure the agent’s power remains subsisting.
- The Court adopts a purposive construction of the Circular to prevent agent fraud, rejecting any interpretation that permits registration without signature verification.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Narrows and rejects the narrow view in Arihabt Foundations by imposing mandatory signature verification on life certificates.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms that “fraud vitiates everything” as a universal maxim affecting property registrations.