Sundaramoorthy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Directing the 1st respondent to take action against the 3rd respondent for registering Settlement deed executed by 4th respondent in favour of 5th respondent bearing Document No.9996 of 2025 dated 16.06.2025 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Palladam Pursuant to the representation dated 15.12.2025.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan,SGP Notice dispensed with for R3 to 5

¶18

__________ Page1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 13259 of 2026

¶21

Order

¶22

The petitioner seeks for a direction from this Court to the first respondent to take an action against the third respondent for registering the Settlement Deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent dated 16.06.2025, registered as Document No.9996 of 2025.

¶23

2.According to the petitioner, while the third respondent was the Sub Registrar despite having knowledge about the fact that the fourth respondent has impersonated the signature of the owner of the property, has allowed the registration of the sale deed dated 16.06.2025, executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner seeks for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 16.06.2025 executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent and also seeks for taking action against the third respondent by the first respondent.

¶24

3.Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice

¶25

on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Since no adverse order is being passed against respondents3 to 5, notice to respondents 3 to 5 is dispensed with by this Court.

¶26

4.This Court expressed its view that the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted since it requires oral and documentary evidence,

¶27

Page2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 13259 of 2026

¶30

which can be let in only before the Civil Court. There must also be a statutory right provided under the Registration Act to enable this Court to direct the first respondent to take action against the Sub Registrar, who according to the petitioner has allowed registration of a document despite having knowledge that the signature of the executant of the said document has been impersonated.

¶31

5.This Court expressed the said view to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner accepted this Court’s view. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty for the petitioner to launch a criminal prosecution against the third respondent independently by giving a criminal complaint before the concerned police and also sought liberty for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the Settlement Deed, executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent dated 16.06.2025 registered as document No.9996 of 2025.

¶32

6.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the registered Settlement Deed dated 16.06.2025, executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth respondent bearing document No.9996 of 2025 and also granting liberty to the petitioner to launch a criminal prosecution independently against the third respondent before the appropriate police station in the manner known to the petitioner under law.

¶33

__________ Page3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 13259 of 2026

¶36

7.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶37

petitioner’s case as it is for the concerned authorities/civil court to adjudicate

¶38

the same, on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.