Disposed

M.Punitha, W/O Manoharan, v. the District Registrar

Madras HC9 Jul 2015WP(MD)/10537/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of a writ petition seeking cancellation of alleged fraudulent property documents. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits with an opportunity of hearing within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within six weeks after hearing.

M.Punitha, W/O Manoharan, Vs the District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :09.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.10537 of 2015

M.Punitha

... Petitioner

1.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Thirumoghur Road, Rajakamberam, 107, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Sub-Registrar,

¶12

Sub Registrar Office,

¶13

Theppakulam, Madurai District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to cancel the fraud document No.4400 of 2008 dated 15.10.2008 and Document No.4730 dated 23.09.2011, Theppakulam, Sub Registrar Office, by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2013 in the light of the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011.

¶16

For petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan

¶17

For respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan

Govt.Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to cancel the fraudualent document No.4400 of 2008 dated 15.10.2008 and Document No.4730 dated 23.09.2011, respectively by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2013 in the light of the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011. By the said representation, the petitioner has alleged that the property belonging to Trust have been forged by the third parties.

¶22

Mrs.N.S.Karthikeyan learned Govt.Advocate takes notice for the

¶23

respondents.

¶24

By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final

¶25

disposal.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that it would be suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the respondents, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶27

¶28

The learned Govt.Advocate appearing for the respondents would

¶29

submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶30

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the

¶31

claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.09.2013, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the interested parties, as narrated in her representation dated 04.09.2013, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to enclose a copy of the representation already sent to the respondents along with a copy of this order.

¶32

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶33

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

To 1.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Thirumoghur Road, Rajakamberam, 107, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District. 2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Theppakulam, Madurai District.

¶37

+1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 38071. TS/23.07.2015/2P - 4C

¶38

W.P(MD).No.10537 of 2015

¶39

09.07.2015

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Punitha, W/O Manoharan, v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Punitha, W/O Manoharan, v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Muppidathi, Vs the District Collector

Ameenammal Vs the District Registrar

S.Saravanan, Vs the Passport Officer

D. Malayalam, Vs the District Revenue

K.Ponniah Vs the District Collector

Thiru. Amul Vs the District Legal Services