Property-registration -valid or not

1) NOT eligible to sale this house to Grand daughter without sons signature.

2) lOW VALUE REGISTRATION IS DEPEND UP ON US. As per state government rule they will calculate per square feet value of that property. As per that we have to pay stamp duty and registration charges to the state government.

Its up to you whether you want to show valuation or consideration more or less.

3) The best possible way is that make gift deed from your grand mother in favour of their child.

Thanks

Thanks a lot for your valuable Response 

can you plz help me that what are the steps to be taken to get this house?.

Thanks 

 

 

 

 

You meant your grand father given this property by way of gift deed . once your grand mother got by way of gift . without see the full detail of that gift deed clearly I can not give clear suggestion. Where are you in Tamil nadu

Was it gifted to your grand mother by your grandfather and subsequently in 2009 it was sold to her grand daughter.if thats the case then you cant do anything as once it got to your gm hands by way of gift it had become her absolute property and she has all rights to give it to whomever she wants

If it was self acquired proeprty of your grandfather then he could dispose it any manner in his life time as it pleased to him e.g. gift/sale etc.

You may show all property related docs to an able counsel specializing in family/property/revenue/civil matters.

 

Dear Sir, I have cheated by the builders , Plot Owners & Third Party interest by the way of fraud registration, Simple story is this.

01. Builder (A) enter into agreement to Sale  with constuction in 2011,  on the plot of Owners ( B), after completed construction,  obtained the constrction sanction permission letter on belaf of onwner (B) on 07/06/2013, , and created third party (C) sold out through owners(B) as plot only as descripttion  07/08/2013 even 5 duplex house were constructed on the plot Rs.10.12 lacks only, detailed complaint file with IGR dept. u/s 82 of the registration Act as under : 

 

Date: 21/04/2016                                                                                             

 

 

Inspector General of Registration & Stamps Controller                                          :- By Speed Post

Ground Floor, Opp Vidhan Bhavan

New Admn Building

Pune-411001, Maharashtra

 

Dy. Inspector General of Registration & Dy. Controller of Stamps,                        :-By Speed post

Nashik Division,

Behind Collector Office, Extension Block,

Trymbak Road,

Nashik-422001

 

Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I,                                                                              ;- By Hand       

Central Admn.Building, Akashwani Chowk,

Jalgaon-425001

 

Sub: Cancellation of fraudulent Registered Sales Deed No.5652 of 2013, dated 07/08/2013,

Ref: U/s 82 of Registration of Act-1908, Letter Ref No even dated 08/03/2016 of O/o the IGR Pune-1 & Letter ref even No dated 31/03/2016, 14/03/2016, 23/02/2016 and 01/02/2016 etc. O/o the Joint Sub District Registrar, Class-I, Jalgaon and complaint ref even dated 22/01/2016, 20/02/2016, 04/03/2016, 29/03/2016 etc.

 

Respected Sir,

 

With reference to the above Complainant further humbly submitted that details of the complaint as under:-

 

1. It is submitted that Seller (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari) is the Plot Owner vide Sale Deed No. 1553/2011, dated 14/03/2011 wherein Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) signed his signature as witness for the Scheduled Property of area admeasuring 490.70 sqmeter, Plot No.16, Survey No.88 Mouje Satare, within limit of the MC Bhusawal, Ta. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon.

 

1. It is submitted that Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) called upon the advertise & approached to buyer  who are in interested to buy a duplex houses in SAI PARK premises on Scheduled Property of area admeasuring 490.70 sqmeter, Plot No.16, Survey No.88 Mouje Satare, within limit of the MC Bhusawal, Ta.Bhusawal, District Jalgaon.

 

1. It is submitted that 01.Shailendrakumar Mushak Yadav, 02. Pritam kumar Tiwari, 03. Uma Raghunath Baraskar, 04. Trymbak Gangadhar Dhote, 05. Chetan Malviya, 06. Vijay Motiram Ramteke entered into the agreement with Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) for the respective Duplex Houses, as shown in the drawing map as a SAI PARK with agreement i.e. 16/A, 16/B, 16/C, 16/1, 16/2, & 16/3 respectively, copies of the Agreement to Sale dated 26/05/2011 Trymbak Gangadhar Dhote and payment receipt Rs.12.26 Lacks, dated 04/10/2011 of Pritam kumar Tiwari, and dated 26/07/2011 of Vijay Motiram Ramteke etc.are enclosed for your perusal.

 

1. It is submitted that the Plot Owner (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari) executed the sale deed No.3626/2011, dated 12/07/2011, with one of the Buyer Shailendrakumar Mushak Yadav, with help of the Builder, wherein Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) signed his signature as witness 2nd time and continued further construction on scheduled property of approximately Rs.90.00 Lacks.

 

1. It is further submitted that Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) completed the construction in 2013, and obtained the Building Construction Sanction Plan Permission letter No.29, dated 07/06/2013, from the MC Bhusawal, wherein Consultant License Engineer Deepak Falak, attested & certified the drawing (Map) of the scheduled property admeasuring 490.75 Sqmtr of,Plot No. 16 Survey No.88, Mouje Satare, Taluka Bhusawal, District.Jalgaon on behalf of the  Plot Owner (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari) &  Shailendrakumar Mushak Yadav.

 

1. It is further submitted that the Plot Owner (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari) & Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) despite of peacefully handover the constructed Duplex House with plot ownership to Buyers No. 02. Pritam kumar Tiwari, 03. Uma Raghunath Baraskar, 04. Trymbak Gangadhar Dhote, 05. Chetan Malviya, 06. Vijay Motiram Ramteke created third party interest and sold out to the Buyer (Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vansant Ugale) vide fraudulent Registered Sale Deed No.5652/2013, dated 07/08/2013 in Rs.10.12 lacks only as descripttion of property as Plot of approximately construction value Rs.90.00 lacks and market value of the constructed five Duplex Houses were approximately Rs.125.00 lacks of SAI PARK premises at the time of registration, wherein Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) singed his signature as witness 3rd  time.

 

1.  It is further submitted that Plot Owner (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari) & Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) and Buyer (Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vansant Ugale) intentionaly avoided  to mention and not  recorded  about the Building Construction Sanction Plan Permission letter No.29, dated 07/06/2013, obtained from the MC Bhusawal after the completion of the construction while executing in registered Sale Deed No.5652/2013.

 

1. It is submitted that the acts and aims of the Plot Owner (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari), Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) signed as witness and Buyer (Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vansant Ugale) have fraudulent,  played fraud vide  Sub-section-(a) U/s 82, of the Registration Act-1908 in the sale Deed No.5652/2013, dated 07/08/2013 with registering authority, as Public Servant, at SRO-Bhusawal, Class-II, as well with innocent Buyers 02. Pritam kumar Tiwari, 03. Uma Raghunath Baraskar, 04. Trymbak Gangadhar Dhote, 05. Chetan Malviya, 06. Vijay Motiram Ramteke.

Section 82 in The Registration Act, 1908 :-

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 delivers 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 presents 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 in The Registration Act, 1908:-

83. Registering officers may commence prosecutions.—

(1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the  permission of the Inspector-General, 67[***] 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.

Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897:-

21. Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws. —Where, by any 36 [Central Act] or Regulations a power to 37 [issue notifications,] orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any 38[notifications,] orders, rules or bye-laws so 39 [issued].

 

Section 69 in The Registration Act, 1908

69. Power of Inspector-General to superintend registration offices and make rules.—

(1) The Inspector-General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the 59 [State Government], and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act—

(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents; 60 [***]

61 [(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to which the books may be kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any other electronic form under sub-section (1) of section 16A;]

(b) declaring what language shall be deemed to be commonly used in each district;

(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized under section 21;

(d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under sections 25 and 34, respectively;

(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the registering officer by section 63;

(f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make memoranda of documents;

(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and Sub-Registrars of the books kept in their respective offices under section 51;

62 [(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in sub-section (2) of section 88 may be presented for registration;]

(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos. I, II, III and IV, respectively;

(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration offices; and

(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub-Registrars.

(2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the 63 [State Government] for approval, and, after they have been approved, they shall be published in the 64 [Official Gazette], and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

                                                                                             

1. It is submitted that after fraudulent Registered Sale Deed 5652/2013, Buyer (Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vansant Ugle) of the Sale Deed No.5652/2013, dated 07/08/2013 also handed over peaceful possession, to the 03. Uma Raghunath Baraskar buyers of the Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) vide Sale Deed No. 6798/2013, dated 07/10/2013 wherein  Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) singed his signature as witness 4th times and Chetan Malviya vide Sale Deed No.6635/2014 dated 10/11/2014 as descripttion of  property as Plot only.

 

1. It is submitted that Buyer (Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vansant Ugale) of the Sale Deed No.5652/2013, dated 07/08/2013 also sold out as premises of SAI PARK 16/B, 16/C, 16/1, 16/2 & 16/3 with property descripttion “as Construction with Plot” others and as Plot only to buyers of the Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil). Details of the registered transaction of Scheduled Property, Plot No.16, Survey No.88 Mouje Satare, within limit of the MC Bhusawal of area admeasuring 490.70 sqmete, District Jalgaon in SRO-Bhusawal Class-II, are as under.

 

Sr No.	Sale Deed No/ Year				As per Builder Duplex House No.	Descripttion of Property of Index II
	Sale Deed		Smt.Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digamber Choudhari	Shailendrarkumar  Mushak Yadav		Plot only 82.71 Sq.mtr
	5652/2013 Sale Deed		Smt.Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digamber Choudhari	Smt. Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Smt.Sangita Vasant Ugale	16/B, 16/C, 16/1, 16/2 & 16/3.	Plot Only 407.99 Sq.mtr
	Sale Deed		Smt. Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Smt.Sangita Vasant Ugale	Uma Raghunath Baraskar		Plot only 71.72 Sq.mtr
	Sale Deed		Smt. Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Smt.Sangita Vasant Ugale	Sudhakar Baburao Shinde		Construction with Plot, of the SAI Park premises
	Sale Deed		Smt. Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Smt. Sangita Vasant Ugale	Lavesh Kisan Ghaywat		Construction with Plot, of the SAI Park Premises
	Sale Deed		Smt. Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Smt.Sangita Vasant Ugale	Chetan Maviya		Plot only 92.25 Sq.mtr
			Smt. Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Smt.Sangita Vasant Ugale	Sudhakar Bhaskar Gavali		Construction with Plot
			Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Smt.Sangita Vasant Ugale	Mahipal Dinkar Ingle		Construction with Plot, of the SAI Park Premises
	Sale Deed		Smt. Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Smt.Sangita Vasant Ugale	Sudhakar Bhaskar Gavali		Construction with Plot
	Mortgage Deed		Sudhakar Bhaskar Gavali	SBI		Construction with  Plot

           

1. Complainant further submitted that it is clear on record while endorsing in the Index II at SRO-Bhusawal that “descripttion of the property” endorsed as SAI Park Premises which is constructed earlier by the Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) as SAI Park Premises, the same descripttion is endorsed while execution of  sale deed No.3527/2014, 3528/2014 & 412/2016 and recorded  by (Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vansant Ugale) as seller before registering authorities which is on record evidences,  with SRO Bhusawal, Class-II.

 

1. It is also clear from the involvement of the  Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil), as witness 1st time in 1553/2011 with Buyers & Plot Owner (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari) while buying scheduled Property, as witness 2nd time in 3626/2011 with Sellers & Plot owners (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari) & Buyer Shailendrakumar Mushak Yadav., as witness 3rd time in 5652/2013 in Sellers & Plot owners (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari) & Buyers (Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vansant Ugale) while selling scheduled property and witness 4th time in 6798/2013 with Sellers (Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vansant Ugale) & Buyers Uma Raghunath Baraskar which all are on record of evidences  at SRO Bhusawal Cass-II, as  Builder (Ajay Ramdas Patil) have collusion with Seller & Buyers, with each other  of Sale Deed No.5652/2013 and intentionally played fraud U/s 82 of the Registration Act-1908 with Registering Authority and intentionally play fraud with  innocent buyers too while executing in  the  Sale Deed No.5652/2013.
2. It is further submitted that the Smt Jayshri Shaligram Nyati  & Smt. Sangeeta Vasant Ugale violated the notice norms,  created third party interest over the disputed Duplex House 16/3 of the scheduled property in the favor of Sudhakar Bhaskar Gavli vide Sale Deed 567/2016, subsequent mortgage deed 568/2016 dated 02/02/2016 executed at SRO Bhusawal which is in question & explainable sub-section (a) of  U/s 82 of Registration Act-1908, as even after notice served on 08/01/2016  from the Hon’ble District Consumer Court Forum, Jalgaon and notice served on 01/02/2016 from Joint District Sub Registrar, Class-I Jalgaon too, in context to online complaint dated 22/01/2016 to Smt.Jayshri Shaligram Nyati  & Smt. Sangeeta Vasant Ugale.

 

1. It is submitted that complainant filed the written complained on 23/02/2016 with IGR-Pune-1, vide speed Post No. EM433460819IN dated 20/02/2016 and written reply filed in the office of the Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I on 04/03/2016, with all relevant documentary evidences  and  explanations of the section 82, 83, 68, 69, of Registration Act-1908, circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 of the IGR-Chennai & Judgment of Justice T Raja Madras High Court dated 17/07/2014 observed the  legal validity of the circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 of the IGR-Chennai-28, circular No.Reg-260/2012/2012-54720/R&DM dated 08/12/2012 of Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Odisha, the same context is explain in circular No.621/2013/2806 dated 30/11/2013 IGR Maharashtra State Pune-1.  

 

“A Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court (AIR 2007) observed in Yanala Malleswari Vs Ananthalu Sayamma case that court did not see any prohibition for the registering authority to cancel the sale deed earlier registered, which is likely to cause prejudice to the rightful owners as well as entire public at large”.

 

In the same judgment, the Hon’ble High Court has observed that “it is thus law of the land that even administrative authorities have inherent powers to recall or revoke their own order if such order was obtained by playing fraud on such public authority”.

 

Keeping in view judgment of A Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court (AIR 2007) observed in the case of Yanala Malleswari Vs Ananthalu Sayamma, O/o the Inspector General of Registration Chennai-028, derived the circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 (C.No.52338/C1/2011) & O/o the Disaster & Management Department, Government of Odisha, derived the circular No.260/2012-54720/R&DM, dated 18/12/2012 which is self-explanatory, in the same context O/o the IGR & SC, Maharashtra State, Pune-1 issued the circular No. even dated 30/11/2013 to arrest fraud registration.

 

The Hon’ble Justice Mr.T Raja in the High Court of judicature at Madras has upheld the legal validity of a circular of the Inspector General of Registration of dated 03.11.2011 in his judgment dated 17/07/2014.

 

“The Judgment of A Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court (AIR 2007) observed in Yanala Malleswari Vs Ananthalu Sayamma case also refers to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court not only in the case of Indian Bank Vs Satyam Fibers India Pvt Ltd, but also in the various cases which is follows:-

 

“Inherent powers (to recall or revoke their own orders by the administrative authorities if the same was obtained by playing fraud on such public authority) spring not form legislation but from the nature and conservation of the authorities, to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to process and ensure transparency”

 

            In nut shell, they have observed the following:-

 

It is therefore axiomatic that in India, the quasi judicial and administrative authorities have inherent powers to recall their order or proceedings at a large point of time if it is shown that such order was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. The question of law of limitation to exercise such inherent power by the administrative authorities does not arise because fraud unravels everything rendering a fraudulent order void and non-existent.  This principle in a differentt manner is also adumbrated in Section 21 of General Clause Act, 1897 (Central ACT No. X of 18970. Under the said provision, an authority who has power to issue, inter alia orders has also power to rescind such order.

 

Finally, they have opinioned as follows:-

 

“In the considered opinion of this court if a person sell away the property belonging to others; it would certainly be fraud on the statute. It would be adding insult to injury, if such person is asked to go to Civil Court and get subsequent sale deed cancelled or seek a declaration”

 

1. It is further submit that Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I, flatly refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant on 04/03/2016, even after the complainant produced all relevant document pertaining to complaint as evidences in the office of the Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I on 04/03/2016 and the same is narrated with evidences to Inspector General of Registration & Stamps Collector, Maharashtra State, Pune-1 vide speed post No. .EM433460819IN dated 20/02/2016, needless to mentioned here that inappropriate, unilateral decision taken in the favor of fraud people i.e. Seller & plot owner:- Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari, Buyers:- Smt Jayshri Shaligram Nyati & Sangita Vasant Ugle and Builder & witness Ajay Ramdas Patil who have played fraud with registering authority,  by Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I Jalgoan  on 14/03/2016 despite of his duty obligations being administrative authority (public Servant) and disposed of the complaint vide letter reference even no. dated 14/03/2016, without initiating appropriate enquiry & without examining the evidences accordingly as per rule & laws. The Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I Jalgaon deliberately contempt the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court violated his duty obligation while hearing the complaint.

 

1. It is further submitted that complainant rejected in writing,  decision of the Joint District Sub Registrar, Class-I, Jalgaon dated 14/03/2016  and filed written reply vide letter dated 29/03/2016 copy of the same is endorsed for the concern authority  IGR&SC-Pune-1, DIGR&DSC-Nashik Division, Nashik too  for their perusal. Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I Jalgoan  issued the further notice dated 31/03/2016 for further hearing on 21/04/2016, however on pursuance of the tactic of  hearing dated 09/02/2016, 17/02/2016 & 04/03/2016 and decision taken on 14/03/2016 by Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I Jalgoan, not in line with manner to arrest fraud registration, unable to deliver the justice to the complainant and innocent buyers at present & in future entire public at large, being a public servant, administrative authority etc.

 

HENCE, IT IS PRAYED THAT

 

1. Complainant humbly praying before higher jurisdiction authority to sustain the maintainability of the complaint and quash unilateral & inappropriate decision taken by the Joint District sub Registrar, Class-I, Jalgaon, vide letter ref. even no. dated 14/03/2016 in the favor of the fraud people, antisocial element who played fraud with registering authority in the Sale Deed No.5652/2013 as well in 567/2016 and 568/2016 too.

 

1. Complainant further praying before higher jurisdiction authority to  compile all above section 82, 83, 68, 69 of Registration Act-1908, section 21 of General Clause Act 1897 etc of the laws and judgments of Hon’ble High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court too while  pursuing the  complaint and requesting to  recommend the appropriate commission of enquiry other than local  registering official  to cancel, to arrest the fraud registration 5652/2013 and as well   567/2016 & 568/2016 of the Scheduled Property which explain accordingly in above narrated paragraph and file the suitable criminal case against Seller:- (Smt. Anita Santosh Nile & Smt. Shoba Digambar Choudhari), Buyers:- Smt Jayshri Shaligram Nyati  & Smt. Sangeeta Vasant Ugale and Witness (Builder) Ajay Ramdas Patil.

 

1. Any other just and proper relief may kindly be granted in favor of complainant, pass the suitable order within due course, in addition to the above in the interest of principle justice to arrest fraud registration at present and in future too and oblige.

 

Thanking you and looking forward to honest response in the context to the complaint.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

          (Trymbak Gangadhar Dhote)

 

          Add: S-9, III Floor, Sukhakarta Appt,

         Near Back Gate of Saint Alloyes School

         Bhusawal, Ta. Bhusawal-425201

         

Hearing is held on 21/04/2016, 

Joint District Sub Registrar Class-I, Jalgaon is hearing in accordance with rule & laws and fvouring to fraud & antiscial elements, under this circumstance is ther any remedy to chalange it before High Court u.s 226