Disposed¶61

Subramaniayan v. Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC18 Nov 2025WP/35411/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (Art. 226) - District Registrar Cuddalore proceedings dt.13.08.2021 barring further documents based on Doc Nos.1019/2012, 2232/2014, 861/2019, 1602/2019, 1276/2020 via Index II entry at SRO Kadampuliyur - S.68(2) Registration Act 1908 confers supervision/control, not cancellation power - followed W.P.(MD) No.15287 of 2023 dt.29.08.2024 - proceedings set aside, Index II entries to be corrected - parties remitted to Civil Court - disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1283/a1/a4/2021-1 dated 13.08.2021 set aside; respondents directed to make appropriate entries in the Index II registry; parties left free to adjudicate their rights before the Civil Court; connected miscellaneous petition W.M.P.No.39641 of 2025 closed; no costs. ¶61

Subramaniayan Vs Deputy Inspector General of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1283/a1/a4/2021-1 dated 13.08.2021, which carried a clause that no further document can be proceeded based on Doc Nos.1019/2012, 2232/2014, 861/2019, 1602/2019 and 1276/2020 entered in the Index II Registry of the 3rd respondent's office, are liable to be quashed and whether the 3rd respondent must remove that clause, considering the District Munsif Court, Panruti judgment in O.S.No.08/2022 and the 1st respondent's proceedings Na.Ka.No.2542/U/2021 dated 30.09.2022.

¶22

Court's answer

Applying the ratio of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.15287 of 2023 dated 29.08.2024, the proceedings issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1283/a1/a4/2021-1 dated 13.08.2021 are liable to be set aside.

¶57-60

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly the impugned proceeding is set aside, and the Court directs the respondents to make appropriate entries in the Index II registry.

¶60

Key takeaways

It is open to the parties concerned to adjudicate their rights before the Civil Court.obiter¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.) | W.P.No.35411 of 2025 & W.M.P.No.39641 of 2025 | decided 18.11.2025 | Registration - Registrar's power - Impugned proceedings of the District Registrar, Cuddalore in Na.Ka.No.1283/a1/a4/2021-1 dated 13.08.2021 imposed a clause that no further document can be proceeded based on registered documents Doc Nos.1019/2012, 2232/2014, 861/2019, 1602/2019 and 1276/2020, with a corresponding Index II entry at the SRO, Kadampuliyur. Petitioners sought certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 to quash the proceedings and remove the clause, citing the District Munsif Court, Panruti judgment in O.S.No.08/2022 and the DIG of Registration's proceedings Na.Ka.No.2542/U/2021 dated 30.09.2022. Counsel urged the matter was covered by the dictum in W.P.(MD) No.15287 of 2023 dated 29.08.2024 (extracted in the judgment): S.68(2) Registration Act, 1908 confers only superintendence and control over Sub-Registrars and rectification of errors regarding books/office, not power to cancel a registered document absent express provision, so circulars resting on it are invalid. Following that ratio, this Court set aside the impugned proceedings, directed the respondents to make appropriate entries in the Index II registry, and left the parties free to adjudicate their rights before the Civil Court. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.No.35411 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 18.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.35411 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.39641 of 2025

¶7

1.Subramaniyan

¶8

2.Muruganantham

¶9

3.Maya Krishnan

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Cuddalore Zone, Cuddalore.

¶13

2.District Registrar Cuddalore, Registration Cuddalore.

¶14

3.Sub Registrar, Kadampuliyur, Sub Registrar Office, Kadampuliyur.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.35411 of 2025

¶18

4.R.Purangani Murugan

5.J.Lakshaboopathy

... Respondents

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1283/a1/a4/2021-1 dated 13.08.2021 and quash the same, consequently direct the 3rd respondent to remove the impugned clause of no further document can be proceeded based on the Doc No.1019/2012, 2232/2014, 861/2019, 1602/2019 and 1276/2020 entry in the Index II Registry of the 3rd respondent office by considering the judgment of the District Munsif Court, Panruti in O.S.No.08/2022 and also in compliance of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2542/U/2021 dated 30.09.2022.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Selvaraj for Mr.V.Neethidurai For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate

¶24

2/8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.35411 of 2025

¶27

For Respondent 4 : Mr.R.Purangani Murugan, Party-in-person

¶28

For Respondent 5 : Notice served-No appearance

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records

¶31

nd relating to the impugned proceedings of 2 respondent in

¶32

Na.Ka.No.1283/a1/a4/2021-1 dated 13.08.2021 and quash the same,

¶33

rd consequently direct the 3 respondent to remove the impugned clause of

¶34

no further document can be proceeded based on the Doc No.1019/2012,

¶35

2232/2014, 861/2019, 1602/2019 and 1276/2020 entry in the Index II rd Registry of the 3 respondent office by considering the judgment of the District Munsif Court, Panruti in O.S.No.08/2022 and also in compliance of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2542/U/2021 dated

¶36

30.09.2022.

¶37

3/8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.35411 of 2025

¶40

2 . When the matter was came up for hearing today, learned counsel

¶41

for the petitioner would submit that the matter is no longer res-integra

¶42

and the same is covered by the dictum laid down by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.15287 of 2023 dated 29.08.2024. This Court while dealing

¶43

with the same issue held as follows and the relevant paragraphs are

¶44

extracted hereunder:-

¶45

“5.In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that and in the absence of any express power to cancel the registered document, the Registrar has no power to cancel the document. Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 relied upon by the Registration Department to substantiate the circular in this regard, wherein carefully seen. Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows:”

¶46

68. Power of Registration to superintend and contol Sub Registrars.

¶47

(I) every Sub Registrar perform the duties of his office under the superintendence and control of the Registrar in whose district the office of such Sub Registrar is situate.

¶48

(2) Every Registrar shall have authority to issue (Whether on complaint or otherwise) any order consistent with this

¶49

4/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.35411 of 2025

¶52

Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub Registrar subordinate to him or in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has been registered.

¶53

6.The above provision makes it clear that the said section confers power upon the Registrar to supervise and control all the acts of the Sub-Registrar. Sub-Section 2 empowers the Registrar to issue any order consistent with the Act, which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him. Similarly, the Registrar shall also have power in respect of the rectification of any error regarding the book or the office in which any document has superintendence and supervision and not a power vested to cancel the registration of the document. Therefore, relying upon Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and issuing such circular cannot be valid in the eye of law. Unless a specific power and express provision is made in the Act empowering the Registrar to cancel the document, such powers cannot be conferred by the Inspector General of Registration by taking aid of 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.”

¶54

5/8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.35411 of 2025

¶57

In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.(MD)

¶58

No.15287 of 2023 dated 29.08.2024, proceedings issued by the second

¶59

respondent in Na.Ka.No.1283/a1/a4/2021-1 dated 13.08.2021 is liable to

¶60

be set aside. Accordingly the said proceeding is set aside. Consequently, this Court directs the respondents to make appropriate entries in the Index II registry. It is open to the parties concerned to adjudicate their rights before the Civil Court.

¶61

4. In the result, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶62

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶63

18 .11.2025

¶64

¶65

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

¶66

¶67

6/8