Dismissed¶34

Gunasekaran.a v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC14 Feb 2025WA(MD)/1715/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.A.(MD)No.1715 of 2021; writ appeal dismissed (14.02.2025); cancellation of registered document; Registration Act; Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 withdrawn; Satya Pal Anand Vs State of M.P., 2017 (1) CTC 414; District Registrar Dindigul; Sub Registrar Nilakottai; Document No.649/2005; recall order 23.04.2018; W.P.(MD)No.6286 of 2021; remedies in pending civil suit; G.R.Swaminathan and M.Jothiraman JJ.

What did the court decide?

The District Registrar, Dindigul issued proceedings dated 03.02.2017 only by invoking the power conferred on him under Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011. ¶30

Gunasekaran.a Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal should be allowed by setting aside the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.03.2021 dismissing W.P.(MD)No.6286 of 2021, which had challenged the recall order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the second respondent (District Registrar).

¶20

Court's answer

The District Registrar, Dindigul issued proceedings dated 03.02.2017 only by invoking the power conferred on him under Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. that the authority under the Registration Act cannot direct cancellation of a document once registered, Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 was withdrawn, orders passed under it were directed to be recalled, and that is why the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 came to be passed by the second respondent.

¶30

Key takeaways

The learned Single Judge rightly held that the recall order does not warrant any interference.ratio¶30
The appellant had already filed a civil suit and it is for him to pursue his remedies in the pending civil proceedings.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.A.(MD)No.1715 of 2021 (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) - dismissed 14.02.2025 (G.R.Swaminathan and M.Jothiraman JJ.). Appellant A.Gunasekaran, brother of fourth respondent Palaniappan, had complained to the District Registrar, Dindigul seeking cancellation of Document No.649/2005 (Sub Registrar, Nilakottai); the District Registrar's proceedings dated 03.02.2017, issued under Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011, relegated the parties to the civil court while rendering adverse findings against Palaniyappan. That order was recalled on 23.04.2018 after Circular No.67 was withdrawn; the learned Single Judge dismissed the challenge (W.P.(MD)No.6286 of 2021, order dated 19.03.2021). Relying on Satya Pal Anand Vs State of M.P., 2017 (1) CTC 414 (authority under the Registration Act cannot direct cancellation of a registered document), the Division Bench found no ground to interfere, dismissed the writ appeal without costs, and left the appellant to pursue his pending civil suit; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.7316 of 2021 closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1715 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.1715 of 2021 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.7316 of 2021

A.Gunasekaran

... Appellant

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Pattinapakkam,

¶12

Chennai.

¶13

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Registration Department, Dindigul.

¶14

3.The Sub Registrar, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

¶15

4.Palaniappan ... Respondents

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.A.(MD)No.1715 of 2021

¶19

Prayer :

¶20

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 19.03.2021 in W.P.(MD).6286 of 2021 on the file of this Court.

¶21

For Appellant : Mr.R.Murali

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Government Advocate for R1 to R3. Mr.M.Saravanan for R4.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard both sides.

¶25

2.The appellant / Gunasekaran and the fourth respondent / Palaniappan are brothers. The grievance of the appellant is that the fourth respondent got registered several properties including a government property illegally and fraudulently. Gunasekaran therefore complained to the District Registrar, Dindigul for cancelling the Document No.649/2005 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Nilakottai. The District Registrar vide proceedings dated 03.02.2017

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.A.(MD)No.1715 of 2021

¶29

even while relegating the parties to go before the civil Court rendered adverse findings against Palaniyappan. Thereafter, this order dated 03.02.2017 was recalled on 23.04.2018. Challenging the recall order, Gunasekaran filed W.P.(MD)No.6286 of 2021. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.03.2021 dismissed the writ petition. Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶30

3.We are not satisfied with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is too obvious that the District Registrar, Dindigul issued proceedings dated 03.02.2017 only by invoking the power conferred on him under Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2017 (1) CTC 414 (Satya Pal Anand Vs State of M.P) had held that the authority under the Registration Act cannot direct cancellation of document once it is registered. Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 was also withdrawn. It was further directed that the orders passed by invoking the said circular should also be recalled. That is why, the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 came to be passed by the second respondent. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the said order does not warrant any

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.A.(MD)No.1715 of 2021

¶34

interference. It is also seen that the appellant had already filed a civil suit. It is for the appellant to pursue his remedies in the pending civil proceedings. We do not find any ground to interfere and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,) 14.02.2025

¶36

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

¶37

To:-

¶38