The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her sale deed. The court noted that the matter was covered by a Division Bench order and set aside the impugned cancellation order based on that precedent.
The Impugned Order dated 19.07.2023 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.8756 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.No.8756 of 2024
Mrs.Hemamalini
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.467/Aa2/2023 dated 19.07.2023 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________Page No. 1 of 4
____________Page No. 1 of 4
W.P.No.8756 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.T.N.Rangeshkanna For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.467/Aa2/2023 dated 19.07.2023 and quash the same.
property from one Ramamoorthy comprised in Sy.No.229/2part, T.S.No.166/21, measuring an extent of 32 cents at Korattur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai by way of a Sale Deed under a registered Document No.117/2007 dated 12.01.2007. At this juncture, the 4th Respondent claimed the subject property by stating that her father had purchased 41.40 cents from one Gopi Shah vide registered Document No. 83 of 1996 and after the death of her father, she is entitled to possession and enjoyment to the said property. Thereby, the 4th Respondent has made an application before the 2nd Respondent to cancel the Petitioner's Sale Deed dated 12.01.2007. Based on the application, the 2nd Respondent had cancelled the Sale Deed dated 12.01.2007 vide Impugned Order dated 19.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________
Page No. 2 of 4
W.P.No.8756 of 2024
the Petitioner is before this Court.
06.11.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation :Yes/No rgm
P.T.ASHA, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________Page No. 3 of 4
____________Page No. 3 of 4
W.P.No.8756 of 2024
rgm
To
W.P.No.8756 of 2024
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 4 of 4_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cancellation order passed by the Sub Registrar under Section 77-A of the Registration Act should be set aside in light of the precedent set in M.Kathirvel case?
Whether the writ petition filed for quashing the cancellation order of a sale deed should be allowed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Kathirvel and others vs. Inspector General of RegistrationFollowed¶28
M.Kathirvel and others vs. Inspector General of Registration – 2024 (4) CTC, 769
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Hemamalini
The Inspector General of Registration
The District Registrar, Central Chennai
The Sub Registrar Office, Villivakkam
Radharani Ramineni
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
