Disposed

Amutha v. The Inspector of General of Registration Department

Madras HC5 Sept 2024WP(MD)/27502/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a District Registrar's order cancelling a settlement deed. The court held registering authorities lack power to cancel registered documents but, given a pending civil suit over the property, directed parties to establish rights in that suit; the direction to initiate action under Registration Act Sections 82-83 was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Direction to initiate action under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act set aside; parties directed to litigate rights in pending civil suit O.S.No.171 of 2023.

Amutha Vs The Inspector of General of Registration Department — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P . (MD) No.27502 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.27502 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.23620 of 2023

¶7

1.Amutha

¶8

2.Lakshmi Ammal

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.The Inspector General of Registration Department,

¶12

No.100, Santhom Highway, Pattinambakkam,

¶13

Chennai-28.

¶14

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Department,

¶15

Deputy Registration Department, Tiruchirappalli.

¶16

3.The District Registrar (Admin), Registration Department, District Registration Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶17

4.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Register Office, Kulathur, Pudukkottai District.

¶18

5.Jansirani

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P . (MD) No.27502 of 2023

¶23

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 pertaining to an order passed by the third respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5552/A2/2022 dated 16.06.2023 and quash the same.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Paranjothi for M/s.KBS Law Office For R1 to R4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.M.Ramu

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.5552/A2/2022 dated 16.06.2023, through which the settlement deed executed in favour of the first petitioner was cancelled.

¶27

2.The contention of the first petitioner is that the subject property is the ancestral property of her mother, who had executed a settlement deed in her favour of with regard to the subject property. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While so, based on the complaint given by the fifth respondent, the third respondent had

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P . (MD) No.27502 of 2023

¶31

conducted enquiry and cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the first petitioner by her mother. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶32

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.171 of 2023 in respect of the subject property and the same is pending before the Sub Court, Pudukkottai.

¶33

4.The complaint has been given by the fifth respondent stating that

¶34

one Chelliah Servai had sold the subject property to one Muhambikai Trust in the year 1985. From one of the Trustees of the said Trust, one Rajagopalan had purchased the property in the year 2000. The said Rajagopalan executed a Will in favour of his son, namely Shanmugam in the year 2005. Based on the said Will, the said Shanmugam had developed the subject property into plots in the name and style of 'Annai Nagar'. The fifth respondent is the purchaser of one of the plots in Annai Nagar. In the meantime, the second petitioner claiming herself as the daughter of Chelliah Servai, had executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter, the first petitioner herein in respect of the property

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P . (MD) No.27502 of 2023

¶38

purchased by the fifth respondent. Hence, the same was cancelled on the basis of the complaint given by the fifth respondent.

¶39

5.The extent of the property is not disputed by the parties. The

¶40

settlement deed was executed by the second petitioner, after the sale deed was executed in favour of the fifth respondent. Normally, this Court would have set aside the order cancelling the registered document issued by the registering authorities as they have no power to cancel any registered document. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have filed a suit with regard to the subject property in O.S.No. 171 of 2023 for declaration and to cancel the documents executed in favour of the fifth respondent and also considering the nature of issue between the parties, this Court directs the parties to establish their rights in the pending civil suit before the competent civil Court. It is also made clear that the findings rendered by the District Registrar will not bind the civil Court to decide the matter independently on the basis of the valid documents adduced by the parties. Further, the direction given in the impugned order to initiate action under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act is alone set aside.

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P . (MD) No.27502 of 2023

¶44

6.This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

05.09.2024

¶46

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta

¶47

¶48

1.The Inspector General of Registration Department,

¶49

No.100, Santhom Highway, Pattinambakkam, Chennai-28.

¶50

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Department,

¶51

Deputy Registration Department, Tiruchirappalli.

¶52

3.The District Registrar (Admin), Registration Department, District Registration Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶53

4.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Register Office, Kulathur, Pudukkottai District.

¶54

5/6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P . (MD) No.27502 of 2023

¶57

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶58

¶59

W.P.(MD) No.27502 of 2023

¶60

05.09.2024

¶61

6/6

¶62

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

Amutha v. The Inspector of General of Registration Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amutha v. The Inspector of General of Registration Department

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

Subbaiya Vs The District Collector

Mohammed Haroon Vs The District Superintendent Engineer

Navanethakrishnan .R Vs The Registrar

Dhanalakshmi Vs Inspector General of Registration

Arunkumar. S Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Irfana. J Vs The District Collector