C.Shanthi Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

C.Shanthi Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; parties directed to pursue the pending civil suit OS.No.84 of 2025; Sub Court, Palacode directed to dispose of the suit within 4 months from receipt of a copy of the order by conducting a trial on a day to day basis; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the sale deed Doc No. 1080/2013 dated 09.04.2013 was a forged document executed by impersonating the deceased vendor Goundappan (who had passed away on 13.03.1985), warranting cancellation. +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie it appears to be a clear case of impersonation: a person who passed away on 13.03.1985 cannot come alive and execute a sale deed on 09.04.2013; taking advantage of the similarity in names, the sale deed was executed, and shockingly without verifying the ID proof or address of the vendor. Definitive adjudication was left to the Civil Court.

Ratio / Principle

Since both parties admitted the pendency of the civil suit OS.No.84 of 2025 (with a written statement already filed by the 4th respondent), the Court felt it appropriate to direct the parties to pursue that suit.

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction to the Sub Court, Palacode, to dispose of the suit OS.No.84 of 2025 within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by conducting a trial on a day to day basis.ratio¶45
Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No. 26211 of 2025) is closed and no costs were awarded.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.) — W.P.No.17721 of 2025, order dated 16.09.2025: C.Shanthi filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to the Sub Registrar, Karagathahalli (3rd respondent) to cancel sale deed Doc No. 1080/2013 dated 09.04.2013 pertaining to 95.13 cents (Survey Nos. 569/3, 569/4, Patta No.69, Karagathahalli Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri), contending the deed was forged by impersonating her father Goundappan, who had died on 13.03.1985, and that the vendor's ID/address proof was never verified. The Court observed prima facie a clear case of impersonation — one dead since 1985 cannot convey in 2013 — with name-similarity exploited. As both parties admitted pendency of civil suit OS.No.84 of 2025 (Sub Court, Palacode), seeking declaration of ownership, possession and that the deed is null and void, the writ petition was dismissed; the parties were directed to pursue that suit and the Sub Court was ordered to dispose of it within 4 months by a day-to-day trial. Connected W.M.P.No. 26211 of 2025 closed; no costs.

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 16.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

W.P.No.17721 of 2025 & W.M.P.No. 26211 of 2025

C.Shanthi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No. 100, Santhome Highway, Pattinampakkam, Chennai 28.

2.The District Registrar District Registrar Office, Gandhi Nagar, Dharmapuri 636 701.

1/8

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

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

3.The Sub Registrar The Office of the Sub Registrar, Karagathahalli, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District 636 808.

4.P.Balakrishnan

... Respondents

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to cancel the sale deed Doc No. 1080/2013 dated 09.04.2013 which as illegal and forged and arbitrary pertaining to the property measuring to an extent of 95.13 cents of land Patta No.69 bearing Survey No. 569/3, 569/4 situated at Karagathahalli Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District 636 808.

2/8

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

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

For Petitioner : Mr. G.Mohammed Aseef For Respondents : Mr. P.Harish 1 to 3 Government Advocate For Respondent 4: Mr. K.Raja Shrinivas.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the registration of

the sale deed executed by one Goundappan, the father of the petitioner herein, in favour of the 4 th respondent.

2. The petitioner submits that the sale deed was forged one i.e., her father had passed away as early as on 13.03.1985, whereas the present sale deed was executed on 09.04.2013. The petitioner would submit that impersonating as the deceased Goundappan, the present sale deed was executed. The petitioner would further submit that no address proof or the ID proof were verified at the time of registering the sale deed. Therefore, it is a clear case of

3/8

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

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

forgery and impersonation and that the sale deed has to be canceled.

3. The petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has

filed a civil suit in OS.No.84 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court,

Palacode seeking for a declaration that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property, to direct the 4 th respondent to vacate and hand over subject property to the petitioner and to declare the sale deed dated 09.04.2013 as null and void.

4. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent admits that the

civil suit in OS.No.84 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Palacode

is pending and that he has also filed a written statement in the said suit. He would submit that if this Court finds that the sale deed was executed by impersonating the deceased person, comprehensive order may be passed with regard to recovery as well as declaration and the Civil Court may consider all these aspects and pass an order.

4/8

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

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

4thth

5. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner and the

4thth respondent, prima facie it appears that it is a clear case of impersonation. The person who passed away on 13.03.1985 cannot come alive and execute a sale deed on 09.04.2013. Taking advantage of the similarity in the names, the present sale deed has been executed. It is further shocking that without verifying the ID proof or the address of the vendor, the sale deed has been executed.

6. Both the parties admitted the pendency of the civil suit in OS.No.84 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Palacode and the 4 th respondent has also filed a written statement. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the parties to pursue the suit in OS.No.84 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Palacode.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction to the Sub Court, Palacode, to dispose of the suit OS.No.84 of 2025

within a period of 4 months, from the date of receipt of a copy of

5/8

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

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

this order, by conducting a trial on a day to day basis. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

16.09.2025

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

kan

6/8

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

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

To

1.The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No. 100, Santhome Highway, Pattinampakkam,

Chennai 28.

2.The District Registrar District Registrar Office, Gandhi Nagar, Dharmapuri 636 701.

3.The Sub Registrar The Office of the Sub Registrar, Karagathahalli, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District 636 808.

7/8

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

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., kan

W.P.No.17721 of 2025

16.09.2025

8/8

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