Dismissed

K.Sivasamy, S/O.Late.Kandasamy v. the District Registrar

Madras HC12 Aug 2024WP(MD)/4774/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the writ petition challenging an order rejecting a cancellation request. The court held that registering authorities lack power to cancel registered documents and that validity challenges are for the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to work out their remedy before the competent Civil Court.

K.Sivasamy, S/O.Late.Kandasamy Vs the District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P . (MD) No.4774 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4774 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1856 of 2023

K.Sivasamy

...Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Karur.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar, Melakarur Sub-Registration Office, Melakarur, Karur.

¶12

3.The Secretary, District Library Officer, Tiruchirappalli.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 1441/Aa1/2018 dated 28.06.2018 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the third respondent to execute a cancellation deed along with the petitioner in respect of the settlement deed bearing registration No.3132/1989 executed on 30.11.1989.

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P . (MD) No.4774 of 2019

¶18

For Petitioner	: Mr.H.Elango
For R1 & R2	: Mr.M.Siddhrathan
	Additional Government Pleader
For R3	: Mr.T.Amjadkhan
	Government Advocate
	ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order in

¶20

Na.Ka.No.1441/Aa1/2018 dated 28.06.2018 of the first respondent and consequently to direct the third respondent to execute a cancellation deed along with the petitioner in respect of the settlement deed bearing registration No.3132/1989 executed on 30.11.1989.

¶21

2.It is the case of the writ petitioner that the property in question belongs to the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of one Kumarasamy for the purpose of selling the lands belonged to him. However, the said Kumarasamy had illegally executed a settlement deed in favour of the third respondent herein. Therefore, he had made a representation before the authorities concerned for cancellation of the said settlement deed. However, the first respondent vide his proceedings dated 28.06.2018 rejected the application of the petitioner stating that he has no power to cancel the said document and hence, the same cannot be cancelled. 2/5

¶22

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

¶23

W.P . (MD) No.4774 of 2019

¶24

3.The petitioner contended that the power of attorney deed executed by the father of the petitioner is only for the purpose of selling the properties of his father. The said deed does not authorize the power agent to execute a gift deed or a settlement deed. He further submitted that the petitioner was a minor at the time executing the power of deed. When the said deed was sought to be cancelled, it was rejected stating that the deed could not be cancelled by the first respondent.

¶25

4.The settlement deed executed in the year 1989 is sought to be cancelled in this writ petition. At the outset, the Registering Authority has no power to cancel any registered document. This aspect has been elaborately dealt by this Court in W.P.No.29706 of 2022 [G.Rajasulochana Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others]. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that the “ some irregularity in the procedure committed during the registration process would not lead to a fraudulent execution and registration of the document, but a case of mere irregularity. In either case, the party

¶26

3/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P . (MD) No.4774 of 2019

¶29

aggrieved by such registration of document is free to challenge its validity before the Civil Court.”

¶30

5.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this

¶31

writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. The parties are at liberty to work out their remedy before the competent Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

12.08.2024

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

To: 1.The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Karur.

¶36

2.The Sub Registrar, Melakarur Sub-Registration Office, Melakarur, Karur.

¶37

3.The Secretary, District Library Officer, Tiruchirappalli.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P . (MD) No.4774 of 2019

¶41

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.4774 of 2019

¶44

12.08.2024

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

K.Sivasamy, S/O.Late.Kandasamy v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sivasamy, S/O.Late.Kandasamy v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagallammal Vs The Sub Registrar

Balamurugan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Thowlath Nooriya. a @ Thowlath Nisha Vs the Inspector General of Registration

D.Michael Raj Vs the District Registrar

Arulraj Vs the District Registrar

Raju @ Rajalingam Vs The District Registrar