Disposed

Subburaj v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC2 Dec 2025WP(MD)/34680/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged the fifth respondent executed a fraudulent gift deed overstating his land entitlement from three cents to 24 cents and sought a mandamus for enquiry under Section 83 of the Registration Act. The court held that as an affected party aware of the offence, he could complain to police, which must act in accordance with law. Petition disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Police authorities directed to initiate proceedings against the fifth respondent in accordance with law on receipt of complaint; no costs.

Subburaj Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.34680 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.34680 of 2025

¶7

Subburaj

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

¶10

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District.

¶11

3.The District Registrar, (Administration), Madurai South, Madurai District.

¶12

4.The Sub Registrar, Peraiyur Sub Registrar Officer, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶13

5.S.Thiruselvam ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct an enquiry under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 and initiate appropriate criminal action in respect of fraudulent document registered as

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.34680 of 2025

¶18

Document No.847 of 2025, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2025.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj For Respondent : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader, for R1 to R4

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct enquiry under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 and initiate appropriate criminal action in respect of fraudulent document registered as Document No.847 of 2025, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2025.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent is entitled to three cents of land through Document No. 1545 of 2014. However, the fifth respondent has executed a fraudulent Gift Deed vide Document No.847 of 2025, before the fourth respondent / Sub Registrar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, as if he is entitled to 24 cents. Hence, the fifth respondent is liable to be prosecuted for commission of criminal offence. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation on 14.11.2025 to the respondents 1 to 4 and the same is yet to be considered. Hence, the present petition.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.34680 of 2025

¶26

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that if the Authorities find that the fifth respondent has executed forged gift deed and committed criminal offence, certainly they will invoke Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, and lodge a complaint after getting approval from the higher Authorities. In the instant case, since the petitioner is the affected party and he has knowledge of the offence committed by the fifth respondent, he can very well lodge a complaint before the Police Authorities. In such case, the Police is bound to register the complaint. This aspect was upheld by the Apex Court in umpteen number of Judgments. Therefore, he would submit that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either

¶28

sides.

¶29

As submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, if the Authorities learnt about the alleged fabrication of records on part of the fifth respondent, without the petitioner having knowledge about the same, then they will take up the issue and lodge a criminal complaint. However, once the affected party, i.e., the petitioner herein, gains knowledge, he is entitled to file a complaint on the aspect of alleged fabrication of records. This aspect

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.34680 of 2025

¶33

was also upheld by the Apex Court in number of Judgments. Therefore, since the petitioner has knowledge of the offence committed by the fifth respondent, he can very well lodge a complaint before the Police Authorities. On receipt of any such complaint, the concerned Police Authorities are directed to initiate proceedings against the fifth respondent in accordance with law.

¶34

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

02.12.2025

¶36

Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

¶37

mbi

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.34680 of 2025

¶41

¶42

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

¶43

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District.

¶44

3.The District Registrar, (Administration), Madurai South, Madurai District.

¶45

4.The Sub Registrar, Peraiyur Sub Registrar Officer, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶46

5/6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.34680 of 2025

¶49

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶50

mbi

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.34680 of 2025

¶52

02.12.2025

¶53

6/6

¶54

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

Subburaj v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subburaj v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karuppaiah .R Vs The Secretary

Maheshkumar Vs The District Collector

P.Jeevananthan Vs The District Registrar

Madasamy.M Vs The District Registrar

Sethuraman Vs The District Collector

K.R.Krishnamoorthy Vs The Inspector General of Registration