Allowed

National Charitable Trust v. the Inspector General

Madras HC2 Dec 2025WP/35893/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order cancelling a registered sale deed. Relying on a Division Bench judgment that declared Section 77-A of the Registration Act unconstitutional, the Court set aside the impugned order, holding it invalid even though it was passed before the declaration of invalidity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.07.2023 is set aside without order as to costs.

National Charitable Trust Vs the Inspector General — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.35893 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.35893 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.40146 of 2025

¶7

National Charitable Trust rep. By its Founder-President G.Srinivasan, S/o.Govindaraj, No.77/38, Avvai Nagar, Kannagi Cross Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

¶11

2.The District Registrar (Admin), O/o.The District Registrar, Kallakurichi District.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Joint II Sub Registrar Office, Kallakurichi District.

¶13

4.Malaiamaan 5.Nirmala 6.Kala

¶14

7.Munusamy

¶15

8.Jayakumar

¶16

9.Ramasamy 10.A.Velu

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.35893 of 2025 Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent dated 18.07.2023 in Na.Ka.No.1201/A4/2022 and quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Nuzhath Khanam For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Sunil Kumar for R4 to R8 R9 and R10 – Tapal returned with an endorsement

¶22

(No such person)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

An order dated 18.07.2023 of the second respondent cancelling registered instruments is the subject of challenge in this writ petition.

¶25

The petitioner asserts that the property was purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 27.11.2019 bearing Document No.4865 of 2019. It is also stated that the said property was settled to and in favour of the petitioner Trust. Upon being shocked to discover that Document No.4865 of 2019 was cancelled pursuant to the impugned order dated 18.07.2023, the said order has been impugned in the present writ petition.

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.35893 of 2025

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been issued under Section 77-A of The Registration Act, 1908 and that the said provision was struck down by a Division Bench of this Court as being ultravires.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8 contends that the impugned order pre-dated the order of the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, the said order would not apply in respect of the present case.

¶31

Learned Special Government Pleader responded to the submission by referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel and others vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others (2024 (4) CTC 769) (Kathirvel) . By inviting my attention to paragraph No.176 thereof, learned Special Government Pleader submits that even orders issued prior to the date of judgment were set aside in the said judgment.

¶32

In Kathirvel , the Division Bench of this Court held that Section 77-A of the Registration Act is unconstitutional. Except in cases where such decision is made expressly prospective, it would apply from the date of entry into force of the provision concerned. In Kathirvel , at paragraph No.176, the Division Bench held as under:

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.35893 of 2025

¶36

176. WP.[MD].Nos.8357, 12208, 13666, 9213, 14121, 13172, 13895, 13746, 3419 of 2023, 8679/2023, WP.Nos.15543, 13188, 22561, 31075, 31079/2023 ; WA.No.2963, 2211, 2386/2023, 575/2024 ; WP.Nos. 13567, 8305, 10525, 22570, 9386, 15825/2023:

¶37

The above writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the District Registrar cancelling the document on the ground that the registration of the document are in contravention of Section 22-A and Section 22-B. In view of the decision taken by this Court by declaring Section 77-A is unconstitutional, all these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the respective District Registrars by invoking the power under Section 77 are set aside.

¶38

As is noticeable from the above extract, even with regard

¶39

to orders issued prior to the judgment, the Division Bench set aside all those orders on the ground that Section 77-A is unconstitutional. In view thereof, this writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside by allowing this writ petition without any order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is, however, clarified that this order will not stand in the way of the private 4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.35893 of 2025

¶42

respondents challenging the conveyance in favour of the petitioner

¶43

by instituting proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court.

¶44

02.12.2025

¶45

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mmi

¶46

¶47

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

¶48

2.The District Registrar (Admin), O/o.The District Registrar, Kallakurichi District.

¶49

3.The Sub Registrar, Joint II Sub Registrar Office, Kallakurichi District.

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.35893 of 2025

¶53

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi

W.P.No.35893 of 2025

02.12.2025

6/6

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

National Charitable Trust v. the Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Charitable Trust v. the Inspector General

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

Prabitha Polymers and another Vs B L Bengani and another

Versuni India Home Solutions Limited Vs Maya Appliances Private Limited and 2 others

Ge Vernova T and D India Limited Vs Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited

Devendra Estates LLP Vs the Special Tahsildar

Devendra Estates LLP Vs the Special Tahsildar

M/S. Arc Developers Vs the Sub Registrar