Dismissed¶28

Periyakka v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC21 Feb 2025WP(MD)/4703/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P(MD)No.4703 of 2025; Periyakka v. Inspector General of Registration and others; decided 21.02.2025 by V. Lakshminarayanan, J.; mandamus to cancel registered document No.1266/1981 dated 18.07.1981 (Padiyur Village, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District); Section 77A of the Registration Act declared unconstitutional per M.Kathirvel, 2024(4) CTC 769; cancellation request refused, petitioner relegated to civil court; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed without costs, the petitioner being directed to pursue the cancellation claim before the jurisdictional civil court. ¶28

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

¶1

W.P(MD)No.4703 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.4703 of 2025

Periyakka

..Petitioner

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

¶11

2.The District Registrar, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Vedachandur Registrar Office, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶13

4.K.Raju ..Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to cancel the registered document No.1266/1981 dated 18.07.1981 registered by the 3^rd respondent in Survey No. 443/6 to an extent of 0.8.00 acres situated in Padiyur Village, Vedachendur Taluk, Dindigul District as without any rights created and forged documents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2022 and 07.01.2025 within a period stipulated time by this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P(MD)No.4703 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Charumathi for Mr.T.Ramasamy For Respondent : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Govt. Advocate (for R1 to R3)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to cancel the registered document No.1266/1981 dated 18.07.1981 registered by the 3^rd respondent.

¶21

The petitioner admits that he had executed a document in favour of the fourth respondent on 18.07.1981. She pleads that the fourth respondent had played a fraud on her by stating that he would get an agricultural loan and had taken her thumb impression. Instead of utilizing the said thumb impression for the loan, he registered a sale deed in his name. The petitioner came to know about the sale deed recently. Recently, she applied for a loan. At that time, she applied for the encumbrance certificate. It was then she came to her knowledge that the fourth respondent had played fraud on her and obtained the sale deed. Hence, she lodged an objection to the second respondent to cancel the document. As the second respondent did not take any action, she has filed the present writ petition.

¶22

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

¶23

2/4

¶24

W.P(MD)No.4703 of 2025

¶25

I have heard Ms.A.Charumathi for the petitioner and Mr.P.T.Thiraviam learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶26

A Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel vs. Inspector

¶27

General of Registration and others reported in 2024(4) CTC 769 , has declared Section 77A of the Registration Act as unconstitutional. When the power has been taken away from the respondents 1 and 2, there cannot be a Mandamus directing them to exercise the power under the provision which has already been declared as unconstitutional. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional civil court.

¶28