Allowed

Ellamma, v. Inspector General of

Madras HC25 Oct 2017WP/33476/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226, directing the District Registrar to consider a representation for cancelling an alleged fraudulent partition deed and to give the 5th respondent an opportunity before disposal, notwithstanding a circular supporting cancellation having been withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; 3rd respondent directed to consider the representation dated 05.07.2016 and dispose of it after giving proper opportunity to the 5th respondent.

Ellamma, Vs Inspector General of — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 25.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶5

W.P.No.33476 of 2016

¶6

Ellamma [ Petitioner ] Vs 1 Inspector General of Registration 100 Santhome High Road Chennai-28. 2 Additional Inspector General of Registration Salem. 3 The District Registrar Krishnagiri. 4 The Sub Registrar Kelamangalam. 5 Mr.R.Sampangi Ramaiyah

¶7

[Respondents]

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 05.07.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law and also in view of the circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 in C.No.52338/C1/2011 for cancellation of fraudulent Partition Deed dated 03.10.2011 registered as Doc.No.6139 of 2011 at S.R.O. Kelamangalam within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP (R1-4) Mr.P.Mani (R5)

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.]

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the 3rd respondent to look into the representation dated 05.07.2016, in view of the circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 for cancellation of fraudulent Partition Deed dated 03.10.2011, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his arguments on the basis of the averments made in the petition.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 has submitted a copy of Circular dated 20.10.2017, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned to the effect that Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has been withdrawn by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶17

On the side of the petitioner, it has been specifically mentioned that on 05.07.2016 a representation has been given to the 3^rd respondent, wherein specifically prayed to cancel the alleged fraudulent partition deed dated 03.10.2011.

¶18

Even though Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has already been withdrawn, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶19

In fine, the writ petition is allowed in part without costs. The 3^rd respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 05.07.2016 alleged to have been given by the petitioner and dispose of the same, as early as possible, after giving proper opportunity to the 5^th respondent R.Sampangi Ramaiyah.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1 Inspector General of Registration 100 Santhome High Road, Chennai-28.

¶24

2 Additional Inspector General of Registration, Salem.

¶25

3 The District Registrar, Krishnagiri.

¶26

4 The Sub Registrar, Kelamangalam.

¶27

+1 cc to MR.R.BHARATH KUMAR Advocate SR.NO. 75976 +1 cc to MR.P.MANI Advocate SR.NO. 75356

¶28

W.P.No.33476 of 2016
sv[co]
RD 17/11/2017

¶29

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

Ellamma, v. Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ellamma, v. Inspector General of

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

J. Senthil Kumar Vs Durai Naikar

Mohankumar Vs the District Registrar

A.Manivannan Vs The Inspector General of

K.Rajasekar, Vs The District Registrar

M.Poongoal, Vs The Inspector General of

M.Y.Habibur Rahman Vs the District Registrar (Admn.)