Disposed

Boovaragamoorthy v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC18 Mar 2024WP/6848/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing the Inspector General of Registration to dispose of their appeal under Section 77-B of the Registration Act against cancellation of their settlement and sale deeds. The court declined to issue such direction given divergent Benches' decisions on Section 77-A referred to a Larger Bench, noting petitioners may instead seek civil court remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without mandamus; petitioners granted liberty to approach Civil Court or await Larger Bench decision.

Boovaragamoorthy Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No. 6848 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P.No. 6848 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.7640 of 2024

¶9

1.Boovaragamoorthy 2.Mahavishnu

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 28.

¶13

2.The District Registrar, (Administration), Tindivanam.

¶14

3.K.Manickam

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 24.07.2023, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶17

Page Nos.1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No. 6848 of 2024

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Tamilvanan For Respondent : Mr.U.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts

¶23

notice for respondents 1 and 2. Since this writ petition is being disposed of

¶24

without passing any adverse orders against the third respondent, affecting his

¶25

interest, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

¶26

2.This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of

¶27

mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated

¶28

24.07.2023, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first

¶30

petitioner's father purchased the subject property in the Court auction on 23.12.1987 in E.P.No.423 of 1984 and the same came to be confirmed by

¶31

order dated 19.12.1990. As such, the third respondent herein and his father

¶32

Page Nos.2/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No. 6848 of 2024

¶35

lost their title over the subject property. However, the third respondent, who

¶36

has no title over the subject property, has filed a petition by invoking Section

¶37

77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 [ hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']

¶38

before the second respondent/District Registrar (Administration) challenging

¶39

the settlement deed in favour of the first petitioner and sale deed executed by

¶40

the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner. The second respondent, without proper enquiry, cancelled the documents. Aggrieved by the same,

¶41

the petitioners preferred an appeal before the first respondent/Inspector General of Registration on 24.07.2023 by invoking Section 77-B of the Act.

¶42

However, so far, the first respondent has not disposed of the said appeal, and

¶43

hence, the petitioners are constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶44

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶45

With regard to the amendment of Section 77-A of the Act, there are

¶46

divergent decisions of two separate Benches of this Court as to whether the

¶47

amendment of Section 77-A of the Act, has to be given retrospective effect

¶48

Page Nos.3/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No. 6848 of 2024

¶51

or prospective effect and the said decisions have been referred to a Larger

¶52

Bench to decide the matter, which is seized of the matter. Though there is a appellate remedy available under Section 77-B of the Act, which is continuation of the proceedings under Section 77-A of Act, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the first respondent to decide the appeal under Section 77-B of the Act. However, there is no bar for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to get appropriate remedy. Therefore, the petitioner can either approach the Civil Court or await final orders to be passed by the

¶53

Larger Bench on the issue.

¶54

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶55

W.M.P.No.7640 of 2024, is ordered on payment of separate Court fees, by

¶56

each of the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

18.03.2024

¶58

¶59

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶60

Page Nos.4/6

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.No. 6848 of 2024

¶63

¶64

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 28.

¶65

2.The District Registrar, (Administration), Tindivanam.

¶66

Page Nos.5/6

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.No. 6848 of 2024

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

W.P.No.6848 of 2024

18.03.2024

Page Nos.6/6

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

Boovaragamoorthy v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boovaragamoorthy 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

S.Ranjankumar Vs the District Registrar

Krishnamoorthy Vs the District Collector

M.Gunasekaran Vs the District Collector

S.Bharath Kumar Vs the Sub Registrar

T.Jaganathan, Vs The Sub Registrar

S.Jhansi Rani, Vs the District Collector