Disposed¶31

Gnanasakthi Jagadeesan v. the Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Registration Act – Section 77A

Madras HC26 Feb 2025WP/4213/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.4213 of 2025, Madras High Court, N. Anand Venkatesh J., 26.02.2025; Section 77A Registration Act unconstitutional (M.Kathirvel, 2024 4 CTC 769); cancellation of Sale Deeds Documents 5947/13 and 2651/14; District Registrar Namakkal; Deputy Inspector General of Registration Salem; deletion of remarks in encumbrance certificate; representation dated 03.10.2024; compromise between parties; suits withdrawn; mandamus under Article 226; writ disposed with direction to reverse entries.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to reverse the entries made while cancelling documents registered as Document Nos.5947/13 and 2651/14 by registering the order passed in the writ petition; no costs. ¶31

Gnanasakthi Jagadeesan Vs the Deputy Inspector… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should consider the petitioners' representation dated 03.10.2024 and delete/reverse the remarks endorsed pursuant to the cancellation of Document Nos.5947/13 and 2651/14 (effected under Section 77A of the Registration Act, since held unconstitutional), particularly in view of the subsequent compromise between the parties.

¶18

Court's answer

Since the two documents were cancelled under Section 77A of the Registration Act, a provision held unconstitutional by this Court in M.Kathirvel (2024 4 CTC 769), the very order of the District Registrar cancelling the documents, and its confirmation by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, are non est in the eye of law.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The endorsement cancelling the documents in the encumbrance certificate must be reversed, all the more because there was a subsequent compromise between the parties and the civil suits were dismissed as withdrawn.

¶29

Key takeaways

Direction issued to the 3rd respondent to reverse the entries made while cancelling documents registered as Document Nos.5947/13 and 2651/14, by registering the present order passed in the writ petition; this takes care of the petitioners' grievance.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Registration Act - Section 77A - cancellation of registered Sale Deeds (Document Nos.5947/13 and 2651/14) by District Registrar on complaint of fraud, confirmed by Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem on 04.03.2024 - Section 77A held unconstitutional by this Court in M.Kathirvel (2024 4 CTC 769) - cancellation orders and appellate confirmation consequently non est in the eye of law - endorsing entries in encumbrance certificate to be reversed, particularly since parties had since compromised and both civil suits were dismissed as withdrawn - direction to Sub Registrar, Rasipuram to reverse the cancelling entries by registering the order of this Court - writ petition disposed of, no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.02.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.4213 of 2025

¶6

1.Mrs.Gnanasakthi Jagadeesan

¶7

2.Mrs.S.R.Rathnamala ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem Zone, Registration Department, 2^nd Floor, Kumaragiri Byepass Road, (Kailash Maansarovar CBSE School Near) Ammapet, Salem 636 014. 2.The District Registrar (Admin) Registration Department, Namakkal District.

¶10

3.The Sub Registrar, Rasipuram Sub Registrar Office, Namakkal ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No 1 to 3 to consider the representation given by the petitioners dated 03.10.2024 in light of the order dated 02.08.2024 in the batch of writ petitions in W.P. No.10291/2022 and others by the Division Bench of the High Court Madras by deleting the remarks made in Document Nos.5947/13 and

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

2651/14 dated 30.06.2022 and 13.04.2024 respectively by the respondents.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Umashankar

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.Karthick Jagannath Government Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation made by the petitioners on 03.10.2024, wherein, the petitioners are seeking for the deletion of the remarks made in Document Nos.5947/13 and 2651/14 dated 30.06.2022 and 13.04.2024.

¶19

2.Heard Mr.C.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.Karthick Jagannath, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶20

3.A complaint was made before the District Registrar stating that fraudulent Sale Deeds were executed and based on the complaint, the District Registrar passed orders cancelling the registered Sale Deeds. As against the same, appeal was filed before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem and the appellate authority through proceedings dated 04.03.2024 confirmed the order passed by the District Registrar. As a

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

result, the documents that were registered in Document Nos.5947/13 and 2651/14 stood cancelled.

¶24

4.The further case of the petitioners is that two suits came to be filed and ultimately, both the parties entered into compromise and both the suits were dismissed as withdrawn.

¶25

5.The petitioners gave a representation dated 03.10.2024 seeking for the deletion of the remarks pursuant to the cancellation of the Document Nos.5947/13 and 2651/14. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶26

6.In the considered view of this Court, the two documents were cancelled based on the power that was available at that point of time under Section 77A of the Registration Act. This provision has been held to be unconstitutional by this Court in M.Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration and others reported in 2024 4 CTC 769 . Therefore, the very order passed by the District Registrar which was subsequently confirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration are non est in the eye of law. Therefore, the endorsement that was made

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

cancelling those documents in the encumbrance certificate will have to be reversed. This is more so due to the fact that there was a compromise between the parties subsequently and the civil suits also came to be withdrawn.

¶30

7.In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to reverse the entries that were made while cancelling the documents registered as Document Nos.5947/13 and 2651/14 by registering the present order passed in this writ petition. The same will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioners.

¶31

8.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs.

¶32

26.02.2025

¶33

Internet : Yes Index : Yes Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssr

¶34

(2/2)

¶35

4/6

¶36

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