Petitioner challenged the Registration Department's refusal to cancel a sale deed executed under alleged coercion. The Court held that civil court remedy lies for proving coercion and exercised no jurisdiction, dismissing the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned communication rejected.
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(MD)No.19331 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.19331 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.16006 of 2023
S.Arunkumar
...Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
1/4
W.P(MD)No.19331 of 2023
records pertaining to the impugned communication of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6756/Aa5/2022, dated 21.02.2023 quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to conclude the enquiry initiated under LG-U-U4/1120/2022-U-Sec dated 31.01.2023 within the time frame as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1 to R4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader For R5 : No Appearance For R6 : Mr.K.Sivabalan
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the order of the 3rd respondent, dated 21.02.2023, rejecting the request of the petitioner to cancel the sale deed dated 18.11.2019.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that the sale deed dated 18.11.2019 came to be executed by the petitioner in favour of the 7th respondent under threat and coercion and the entire sale consideration has not been paid by the 7th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.10.2022 to the 3rd respondent, seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 18.11.2019. However, the 3rd respondent, vide communication dated 21.02.2023, stated that
2/4
W.P(MD)No.19331 of 2023
there is no provision under Section 77(A) of the Registration Act to cancel the sale deed already registered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
3.On perusal of the impugned communication of the 3rd respondent, this Court is of the view that the 3rd respondent has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner. If the petitioner is of the view that the sale deed has been executed under coercion, his remedy would have been before the civil Court not before this Court and it has to be proved in the manner known to law. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
To
3/4
W.P(MD)No.19331 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Yuva
W.P(MD)No.19331 of 2023
05.09.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to set aside the registration department's rejection of a request to cancel a sale deed alleged to be executed under coercion.
S. Arunkumar
Inspector General of Registration
Deputy Inspector General of Registration
District Registrar, Virudhunagar
Sub Registrar, Rajapalayam
Suresh Kannan
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
