Dismissed

V. Ravikumar, v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC6 Dec 2018WP/565/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing registration authorities to act on a representation regarding a dispute over a power of attorney. The court held the dispute was purely civil in nature between private parties and outside the scope of the registration authorities, dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and dismissed; no costs awarded.

V. Ravikumar, Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.565 of 2017

¶6

V.Ravikumar ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The Sub-Registrar,
(In the cadre of District Registrar),
Gandhipuram Sub Registrar Office,
Saravanampatti,
Coimbataore.
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Circuit House Road,
Coimbatore – 18.
4. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration,
Circuit House Road,
Coimbatore -18.
5. Kumar
6. Sundararajan ....Respondents
Writ Petition filed under section 226 of the constitution to
issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to
consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation
dated 23.11.2016.

¶7

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

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gopinathan For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman,

¶9

Government Advocate for R1 to R4 No appearance for R5 and R6.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider his representation dated 23.11.2016 and pass orders on the same. In and by the said representation, the petitioner sought for action to be taken by the respondents 1 to 4 against the private respondents 5 and 6.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶13

It is claimed by the petitioner that the 5^th respondent issued a power of attorney in favour of him in the year 2004 and based on such power of attorney, he dealt with the property referred to in the said deed. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 5^th respondent unilaterally cancelled the said power of attorney in the year 2015 and executed another power in favour of the 6^th respondent. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that in view of the change of power from the petitioner to the 6^th respondent, he is not in a position to deal with the properties referred to in the original power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2004. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for action by the respondents 1 to 4 against the respondents 5 and 6.

¶14

I fail to understand as to how the above stated facts and circumstances would entitle the petitioner to seek for a remedy before this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even though the prayer sought for is for disposal of the representation, especially, when those facts and circumstances would only disclose that it is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 which has to be agitated only before the competent Civil Court, if at all the petitioner is having any right or grievance against the 5^th and 6^th respondents in dealing with the subject matter property. Therefore, I find that the very representation made by the petitioner before the respondents 1 to 4 is totally misconceived and thus, not maintainable and outside the scope of the power vested on such authorities Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, muchless a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider his representation and pass orders on the same. However, it is open to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the competent Civil Court as stated supra, if any legal right is vested on the

¶15

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

¶16

petitioner to do so. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Sub-Registrar,
(In the cadre of District Registrar),
Gandhipuram Sub Registrar Office,
Saravanampatti,Coimbataore.
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Circuit House Road, Coimbatore – 18.
4. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration,
Circuit House Road, Coimbataore -18.
+1cc to Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, Advocate, S.R.No.84620
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.85061
W.P.No.565 of 2017
MG(CO)
GSP(21/12/2018)

¶18

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

V. Ravikumar, v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Ravikumar, v. The Sub 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

Nagaraj Vs The Managing Director

A.Mariasengol Raj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep by

C.Panchavarnam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep by

T.Devi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Periyasamy Vs The Chairman cum Managing

Sridhar Rajesh Vs Inspector General of