Allowed¶41

Kalaiyarasi v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC26 Mar 2025WP/5080/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 77-A of the Registration Act held unconstitutional; cancellation of registered partition deed dated 29.12.2020 by District Registrar (South) vide order dated 24.03.2023; impugned order non-est in the eye of law; reliance on M.Kathirvel 2024 4 CTC 769 (Division Bench); writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; pending suit O.S.No.442 of 2023 Additional District Judge Chengalpet unaffected; Order VII Rule 11 of CPC application for rejection of plaint to be dealt with independently; Madras High Court; decided 26.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed with the above directions (impugned order dated 24.03.2023 under Section 77-A held non-est); connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs. ¶41

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed with the above directions (impugned order dated 24.03.2023 under Section 77-A held non-est); connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Validity of the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the second respondent in exercise of power under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, a provision stated to have been held unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Division Bench. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Section 77-A of the Registration Act, the provision under which the second respondent passed the impugned order, has been held to be unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Division Bench in M.Kathirvel (2024 4 CTC 769), and this Court proceeds on that basis.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

In view of Section 77-A having been held unconstitutional, the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the second respondent becomes non-est in the eye of law.

¶32

Key takeaways

The pending suit and the application filed therein for rejection of the plaint shall be dealt with independently, and this order will not have any bearing on the pending suit or any application filed in it.ratio¶37
By virtue of interfering with the order passed by the second respondent, there will be no bearing on the pending suit or the plaint-rejection application, and the clarification given sufficiently takes care of the grievance expressed by the third respondent.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh J., 26.03.2025), Writ Petition No.5080 of 2025: Five petitioners challenged the proceedings of the second respondent (District Registrar (South)) dated 24.03.2023 cancelling their registered partition deed dated 29.12.2020, passed in exercise of power under Section 77-A of the Registration Act. Acting on the Hon'ble Division Bench ruling in M.Kathirvel Vs. The Inspector General of Registration Department of Registration and Others (2024 4 CTC 769) that Section 77-A is unconstitutional, the Court held the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 non-est in the eye of law and allowed the writ petition. The Court made it clear that the pending suit O.S.No.442 of 2023 before the Additional District Judge, Chengalpet, and the application therein under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, would be dealt with independently and would be unaffected by this order, thereby taking care of the third respondent's grievance. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

Writ Petition No.5080 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Writ Petition No.5080 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.5643 & 5644 of 2025

¶8

KALAIYARASI W/o Dayalan No 163/175, Dr. Ambedkar College Road, Pattalam, Perambur Barracks Chennai 600 012.

¶9

2.Meena Kumar W/o Kuppusamy No 5/3 Devaraj Street Pattalam Perambur Barracks, Chennai 600 012.

¶10

3.G. Kumudha

¶11

W/o Ganesan No 155, 4/372, 4th Cross Street, Rajaji Nagar, Madipakkam Chennai 600 091.

¶12

4.P. Premalatha W/o Pandarinathan No 1,5th Street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar Keezhkattalai, Old Pallavaram Chennai 600 117.

¶13

5.A.N. Baskaran

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

Writ Petition No.5080 of 2025

¶17

S/o Nagalingam No 83/177, 2nd Floor S1, Balaji Apartment Dr Ambedkar College Road Pattalam, Perambur Barracks, Chennai 600 012.

¶18

Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Inspector General Of Registration Registration Department, No 100 Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028. 2.The District Registrar (south) Registration Department Integrated Building For Officers and the Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fanepet, Nandanam Chennai 600 035. 3.Pramila Jacob D/o Mr. Thomas George Handi No 127, Harrington Road, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030.

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the 2nd Respondent in Letter No.21718/C2/2022 dated 24.03.2023 cancelling the registered partition Deed dated 29.12.2020 standing in favour of petitioners and to quash the same.

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

Writ Petition No.5080 of 2025

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.M.V.Seshachari For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Ms.Lita Srinivasan, for R3

¶25

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 24.03.2023 cancelling the partition deed dated 29.12.2020.

¶28

2. Heard Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner, Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 and Ms.Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel for R3.

¶30

3. The limited issue that is involved in the present writ petition

¶31

pertains to the order passed by the second respondent in exercise of power under Section 77-A of the Registration Act. This provision has been held to be unconstitutional by Hon'ble Division Bench in M.Kathirvel Vs. The Inspector General of Registration Department of Registration and Others reported in 2024 4 CTC 769. In view of the same, the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the second respondent

¶32

becomes non-est in the eye of law.

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

Writ Petition No.5080 of 2025

¶36

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that the petitioners have already filed a substantive suit in O.S.No.442 of 2023 before the Additional District Judge, Chengalpet and sought for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction and the cause of action for the said suit is the order that was passed by the second respondent dated 24.03.2023. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioners are questioning the order passed by the second respondent both in the pending suit as well as in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that an application has been moved in the pending suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint and the said application has been heard and it is posted for orders today.

¶37

5. It is made clear that insofar as the pending suit is concerned, where the application has been filed for rejection of the plaint, the same shall be dealt with independently and this order will not have any bearing in the pending suit or in any of the applications that have been filed in the pending suit. This order will confine itself only to the power and jurisdiction of the second respondent in passing the impugned order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77-A of the Registration Act 4/6

¶38

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

¶39

Writ Petition No.5080 of 2025

¶40

which has already been held to be unconstitutional. Therefore, by virtue of interfering with the order passed by the second respondent, it will have no bearing in the pending suit and the application that has been filed by the third respondent seeking for rejection of the plaint. Once this clarification is given, it sufficiently takes care of the grievance expressed on the side of the third respondent.

¶41

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

26.03.2025

¶43

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶44

¶45

¶46

The Inspector General Of Registration Registration Department, No 100 Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.

¶47

2.The District Registrar (south) Registration Department Integrated Building For Officers And The Commercial Taxes And Registration Department, Fancepet,

¶48

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

¶49

5/6

¶50

Writ Petition No.5080 of 2025

¶51

Nandanam Chennai 600 035.

¶52

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶53

¶54