Disposed¶28

M.Velu v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC8 Jan 2026WP/49422/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 83 Registration Act 1908; powers of registering officer; impersonation; forgery; fraudulent sale deed; Document No.4937 of 2022; Document No.6271 of 2021; Erumapalayam Village Salem Taluk; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; enquiry against culprits; representation dated 08.11.2025; Sathya Pal Anand 2016 INSC 988; disposal of writ petition; complaint to jurisdictional police; jurisdictional Civil Court; Madras High Court; Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy; M.Velu; M.Saravanan; Uma Maheswari.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petitioner left free to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police or initiate proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court. No order as to costs. ¶28

M.Velu Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; petitioner left free to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police or initiate proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court. No order as to costs.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 and take suitable legal action against the culprits based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.11.2025. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police or initiate proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court; there is no order as to costs.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The powers of registering officers are detailed in the Registration Act and encompass verifying the identity of executants and claimants, including their representatives or assigns; their authority revolves around aspects such as impersonation or forgery.

¶28

Key takeaways

On examining the petition presented by the writ petitioner under Section 83, there is no prima facie indication that impersonation or forgery in the course of registration of the instrument concerned is alleged; accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.) — W.P.No.49422 of 2025, M.Velu v. The Inspector General of Registration and others, order dated 08.01.2026: A petitioner who had purchased property at Erumapalayam Village, Salem Taluk (Document No.6271 of 2021) sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the registration authorities to conduct an enquiry under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 and act against culprits, alleging that the fourth respondent fraudulently executed a sale deed (Document No.4937 of 2022) in favour of one Ms.Uma Maheswari, with further conveyances following. The Court held that the powers of registering officers centre on verifying the identity of executants and claimants and revolve around impersonation or forgery in the course of registration; the petitioner's Section 83 petition disclosed no prima facie indication of either. The writ petition was disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police or initiate proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court; no order as to costs. Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 had invoked Sathya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2016 INSC 988) to contend that registering officers may act only where an offence is discovered prior to registration.

¶1

W.P.No.49422 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.49422 of 2025

M.Velu

.. Petitioner

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road,

¶11

Chennai – 600 028.

¶12

2.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Integrated Building Complex, Kumaragiri Bye-pass Road, Ammapettai, Salem – 636 014.

¶13

3.The Sub Registrar, Dadagapatti Sub Registrar’s Office, Dadagapatti, Seelanaickenpatti, Salem – 636 201.

¶14

4.M.Saravanan

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to conduct enquiry under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 and take suitable legal action against the culprits based on the petitioner’s representation dated 08.11.2025 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.49422 of 2025

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner asserts that he purchased a property at Erumapalayam Village, Salem Taluk under Document No.6271 of 2021. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent executed a sale deed fraudulently in respect of such property in favour of one Ms.Uma Maheswari under Document No.4937 of 2022. On the basis of the said document, it is stated that further conveyances were executed. After submitting a petition under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 on 08.11.2025 seeking further action in terms of Section 83, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

By inviting my attention to Section 83 of the Registration Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registering officer is empowered to initiate the prosecution in terms thereof. Therefore, he contends that this is an appropriate case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Registration Act.

¶24

Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. By relying on the judgment of

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.49422 of 2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sathya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2016 INSC 988), he contends that the registering officer may exercise powers if an offence under the statute is discovered prior to registration and not thereafter.

¶28

The powers of a registering officer are detailed in the Registration Act. These powers encompass verifying the identity of the executants and claimants, including their representatives or assigns, if appropriate. In other words, their authority revolves around aspects such as impersonation or forgery. On examining the petition presented by the writ petitioner under Section 83, there is not even prima facie indication that impersonation or forgery in course of registration of the instrument concerned is alleged. In those circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by, however, leaving it open to the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police or initiate proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

08.01.2026

¶30

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mmi

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.49422 of 2025

¶34

¶35