Partly allowed

J.Selvi v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC22 Nov 2021WP/24824/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the fourth and fifth respondents' filing of a protest petition regarding their Power of Attorney. The court directed the cancellation of the Power of Attorney and ordered an enquiry by the Sub-Registrar on the document presented for registration.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation of the impugned Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2021 and direction to the third respondent to conduct an enquiry on the document presented for registration.

J.Selvi Vs The Inspector General of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.11.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶2

W.P.No.24824 of 2021

¶3

1. J.Selvi
2. K.Ravi
3. K.Uma
4. K.Kumaran ... Vs	Petitioners
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai.
2. The District Registrar, South Chennai Registration District, Chennai.
3. The Sub-Registrar, Joint-I, Sub-Registrar Office, Saidapet, South Chennai District, Chennai.
4. A.Prabakar
5. Vinoth ...	Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ	226 of the of Mandamus,
directing the respondents to consider and pass petitioners' representation dated 24.08.2021.	orders on the
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Manojkumar
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader	(for R1 to R3)

¶4

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

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioners' representation dated 24.08.2021.

¶7

The case of the petitioners is that in respect of the property owned by them, they executed Power of Attorney in favour of the fourth respondent. Subsequently, believing the words of the fourth and fifth respondents, the petitioner executed a Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2021, registered vide Document No.3841 of 2021. Now the fourth and fifth respondents filed a protest petition before the third respondent not to register any deed of conveyance in respect of the property, which was permitted to be dealt with by the fourth respondent through the Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2021.

¶8

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners are directed to cancel the Power of Attorney, which was executed in favour of the fourth respondent. In the meanwhile, the third respondent is directed to conduct enquiry on the document presented for registration in respect of the subject property through the fourth respondent on the strength of the Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2021, registered vide Document No.3841 of 2021.

¶9

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

¶10

Sd/-

¶11

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶12

//True Copy//

¶13

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶14

¶15

¶16

The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai.

¶17

The District Registrar, South Chennai Registration District, Chennai.

¶18

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

¶19

The Sub-Registrar, Joint-I, Sub-Registrar Office, Saidapet, South Chennai District, Chennai.

¶20

+1cc to Mr.A.Manoj Kumar, Advocate SR.No.60587
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.60715

¶21

W.P.No.24824 of 2021

¶22

GPL(CO)
GN(13/12/2021)

¶23

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

J.Selvi v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Selvi v. The Inspector General of Registration

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

N.Sivanandham Serumadar Vs The District Collector

Selvi Vs The Tahsildar

Ramesh Vs The Tahsildar

P.Muthukaruppan Vs The District Registrar

N.Selvan Vs The Sub Registrar

Nirmal Kumar Vs The District Revenue Officer