Dismissed

Kandasamy v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC18 Dec 2024REV.APLW(MD)/180/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application against dismissal of a writ petition challenging registration of documents based on a decree. The applicant argued the Supreme Court ruling on registering authorities' powers did not apply. The court found no merit, noting remedies to avoid the document lay elsewhere, and dismissed the review without costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; review application dismissed with observation that the applicant may challenge the registered document through appropriate legal proceedings.

Kandasamy Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.180 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.12..2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Review Application Writ (MD) No.180 of 2024 in W.P.(MD) No.16447 of 2024

¶6

Kandasamy

¶7

..... Applicant / Writ Petitioner

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinambakkam, Chennai 600 028.

¶10

2.The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, Tenkasi District.

¶11

3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayam Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi District.

¶12

4.Arunachalam

¶13

..... Respondents / Respondents

¶14

Review Application filed under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII, Rule 1 of

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1 of 6

¶17

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.180 of 2024

¶18

the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying to review the order of this court dated 16.08.2024 made in W.P.(MD) No.16447 of 2022.

¶19

For Applicant : Mr.Ananth C Rajesh For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader for RR1 to 3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Review Application has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking to review thee order of this court dated 16.08.2024 made in W.P.(MD) No.16447 of 2022.

¶22

This court has heard Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh, learned counsel for the review applicant and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶23

Upon considering the settled legal position regarding the power of the registering authority to go into the validity of the transaction held between the parties, more particularly, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, [(2016) 10 SCC

¶24

767], by order dated 16.08.2023 while dismissing the writ petition , this court has observed as follows:-

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2 of 6

¶27

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.180 of 2024

¶28

“5. In view of the above settled position of law, unless the power is specifically vested with the registering authority to cancel any document and to go into the matter, there cannot be any direction to cancel the document. All these facts cannot be looked into by this Court and the same has to be agitated before the civil Court.

¶29

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy in the pending civil proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶30

The learned counsel for the review applicant would seek to review the order of this court on the ground that

¶31

(i) based on the dismissal of the writ petition, document has been registered;

¶32

(ii) the judgement in Satya Pal Anand's cas e (cited supra) relied upon by this court to hold that the power of the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot cover any right to cancel the registered document is not applicable to the case on hand;

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 of 6

¶34

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.180 of 2024

¶35

(iii) the registration of the possession of the property through a dismissal decree vide Doc.No.3869 of 2020 dated 05.10.2020 is against the provisions under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908;

¶36

(iv) Striking down of Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 by a Division Bench of this Court as unconstitutional by order dated 02.08.2024 made in a batch of public interest litigation in W.P.No. 10291 of 2022, will not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

¶37

The learned Special Government Pleader while reiterating the settled position regarding the power of the registering authority in registering a document vehemently opposed the review application.

¶38

This court has considered the rival submissions carefully.

¶39

This court does not find any merit at all in the arguments advanced by

¶40

the learned counsel for the review applicant requiring to review the order of this court dated 16.08.2024 made in W.P.No.16447 of 2022. If at all the review applicant is aggrieved by the registration of the document pursuant to the order of this court, the review applicant can very well avoid such document in the manner known to law instead of seeking to review the order of this court.

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 of 6

¶42

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.180 of 2024

¶43

Finding no merit in the review application, this court is of the view that the review application deserves to be dismissed.

¶44

In the result, the review application is dismissed with the above

¶45

observations. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.

¶46

Index : yes / no 18..12..2024 Neutral Citation : yes / no kmk

¶47

¶48

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinambakkam, Chennai 600 028.

¶49

2.The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, Tenkasi District.

¶50

3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayam Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi District.

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5 of 6

¶53

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.180 of 2024

¶54

N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,

¶55

kmk

¶56

Review Application Writ (MD) No.180 of 2024

¶57

18..12..2024

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 of 6

Kandasamy v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandasamy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subramaniam Vs Nayagam

D.Thangaraj Vs Durga

C.P.Shanmugham Vs a.P.Rajendran

Sri Murugan Hardwares Vs M/S.M.R.L. Steel Syndicate

Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs Mr. Sujatha

G. Subburathinam Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies