Allowed

Selvaraj R v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC2 Sept 2024WP(MD)/16455/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration cancelling a registered document. The Court held that the registering authority lacks power to cancel documents or adjudicate title and fraud, which must be resolved by a civil court.

What did the court decide?

The order of the first respondent dated 31.05.2023 in Na.Ka.330/Aa1/2023 is set aside, and parties directed to work out remedy before the competent Civil Court.

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

¶1

W.P . (MD) No.16455 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.16455 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.13748 of 2023

R.Selvaraj

...Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Ramanathapuram Region, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

2.The District Registrar (No.1), Virudhunagar Registration District, Virudhunagar.

¶12

3.Mariyammal

¶13

4.Velthai

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 330/Aa1/2023 dated 31.05.2023 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P . (MD) No.16455 of 2023

¶20

For R3 : Mr.M.Mohanasundaram For R4 : Mr.Satheesh Kumar

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenge has been made to the order passed by the 1st respondent

¶23

in Na.Ka.No.330/Aa1/2023 dated 31.05.2023 cancelling the document

¶24

registered in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

3.The case of the petitioner is that the subject properties are the family properties of the petitioner. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same by way of a settlement deed. When that being the position, the third respondent had lodged a complaint before the second respondent alleging that the documents stand in the name of the petitioner are fraudulent and sought to cancel the same. Based on the said complaint, the third respondent conducted enquiry and rejected the same. Challenging the same, the third respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent, who in turn had cancelled documents stand in the 2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P . (MD) No.16455 of 2023

¶29

name of the petitioner and issued direction tot the registering authority

¶30

not to entertain any further document with regard to the subject property.

¶31

4.At the outset the order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law, since the Registering Authority has no power to cancel any document as the very Section 77(A) inserted under Registration Act to cancel the registered document, is struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10291 of 2022 batch. That apart, the issue of title and the fraudulent transaction cannot be gone into by the authorities, which has to be established in the manner known to law before the civil Court in view of the decisions made in Satya Pal Anand

¶32

v. State of M.P.[ 2016 10 SCC 767] and G. Rajasulochana v Inspector General [W.P 29706 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024].

¶33

5.The order impugned in this writ petition clearly indicate that the first respondent had gone into the issue of title. The allegation with regard to forgery or fraudulent registration cannot be established before the Registering Authority. It has to be established by adducing necessary evidence before the competent civil Court.

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P . (MD) No.16455 of 2023

¶37

6.In view of the above settled position of law, the order passed by

¶38

the first respondent cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the first respondent dated 31.05.2023 in Na.Ka.330/Aa1/2023 is set aside. The parties shall work out their remedy before the competent Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

02.09.2024

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta

¶41

To:

¶42

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Ramanathapuram Region, Ramanathapuram.

¶43

2.The District Registrar (No.1), Virudhunagar Registration District, Virudhunagar.

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

W.P . (MD) No.16455 of 2023

¶47

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.16455 of 2023

¶50

02.09.2024

¶51

5/5

¶52

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

Selvaraj R v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj R v. The Deputy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundar.M Vs The Sub-Registrar

Balamurugan Vs The District Registrar

Pl.Prabakaran Vs The Sub Registrar

Latha Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Jeyaraj .G Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Rajamannar Vs The Inspector General of Registration