Dismissed

Jayasingh.T v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC20 Aug 2024WP(MD)/20603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged registration authorities' order confirming action against a settlement deed registered without original parent documents. The court found false statements were given at registration but, as a declaratory suit was pending between the parties, declined further orders and dismissed the writ petition with a restraint on alienation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; both parties restrained from alienating the disputed property until disposal of pending suit O.S.No.15 of 2022; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

Jayasingh.T Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.20603 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.20603 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.14941 of 2022

T.Jayasingh

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tirunelvei Region, Tirunelveli.

¶11

The District Registrar (Administration), Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶12

The Sub Registrar, Alangulam, Tenkasi.

¶13

4.M.Subramanian

¶14

5.A.Ramasamy @ Chelladurai ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶16

praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.6719/c-jgp-2019 dated 05.08.2022 on the

¶17

file of the 1^st respondent confirming the order No.4520/M2/2019 dated 22.10.2019

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.20603 of 2022

¶21

on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vinoharan For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R4 & R5 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Challenge has been made to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.6719/cjgp-2019 dated 05.08.2022 on the file of the 1^st respondent confirming the order

¶25

No.4520/M2/2019 dated 22.10.2019 on the file of the 2nd respondent.

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that the writ petitioner is not the appellant before the Inspector General of Registration. Originally a complaint has been given by the respondents 4 and 5 for cancellation of the settlement deed. The application has been made by the respondents 4 and 5 to take action against Section 83 of the Act against the 22 families residing in Kuruvakottai village. On their complaint, after conducting the enquiry the impugned order came to be passed. From the impugned order it appears that there are two groups operating

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.20603 of 2022

¶31

against each other. One group consisting of 22 families and the other group 6 families. However, the group of 22 families claiming to be financial contrary over the society based on the resolution said to have been passed on 16.09.2019, a settlement deed has been executed in favour of the other group of families. It has been objected by the respondents 4 and 5 on the ground that only on the basis of the false documents, settlement deed has been executed. Though the document has been registered at the time believing the representation of the petitioner's group that the originals have been destroyed in fire, on enquiry it is found out that all the originals is with the possession of the respondents. After finding the fact that the submission given by the person at the time of registration of the document is false based on which the documents have been registered, the impugned order came to be passed. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed.

¶32

Now it is stated that a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2022 also filed by the respondents 4 & 5 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi to declare the concerned settlement deed is null and void. It is not disputed that settlement deed has been registered without production of original parent documents. It is stated before the authorities to the effect that the original parent documents have been destroyed. However, in the enquiry it is found that the

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.20603 of 2022

¶36

original documents were not produced by the respondents 4 & 5. This Court prima facie of the view that when false statements given before the authorities regarding such documents, though it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar or District Registrar, the fact remains that false statement has been given at the time of registering the documents cannot be disputed. At any event, as the suit is pending before the authorities, this Court is of the view that let the parties agitate their right in the pending suit. Hence, no further orders required in this writ petition.

¶37

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that as a comprehensive suit is pending, till the suit is disposed finally on merits, both side shall not alienate the property in dispute. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

20.08.2024

¶39

Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes NCC: Yes/No PJL

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.20603 of 2022

¶43

¶44

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Tirunelvei Region, Tirunelveli.

¶45

The District Registrar (Administration), Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶46

The Sub Registrar, Alangulam, Tenkasi.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.20603 of 2022

¶50

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶51

PJL

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.20603 of 2022

¶53

20.08.2024

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

Jayasingh.T v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayasingh.T 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balasubramanian Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Jegatheesan Vs The Collector

Durairajvelar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Murugan.S Vs The District Registrar

Ajith Kumar.M Vs The District Registrar

Kamaraj.S Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration