Dismissed¶29

G.Ravichanthiran v. The District Registrar

Madras HC27 Jan 2026WP/549/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition dismissed 27.01.2026; W.P.No.549 of 2026; Article 226 mandamus; cancellation of registered document; registering officer lacks power to cancel registered instrument; fraudulent Document No.89/2023 dated 03.01.2023; Sub Registrar Omalur and Kadayampatti; District Registrar Salem; conveyance deed executed 26.09.2003 solely as security for loan; disputed questions of fact; summary proceedings; discretionary jurisdiction declined; remedy left to Civil Court or police complaint; petitioner G.Ravichanthiran; sixth respondent G.Lakshmanan; representation dated 19.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

The registering officer does not have the power to cancel the registered instrument. ¶25

G.Ravichanthiran Vs The District Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2025 by conducting an enquiry into the document dated 03.01.2023 registered as Document No.89/2023 and cancel it. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The registering officer does not have the power to cancel the registered instrument.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Disputed questions of fact (whether the conveyance was executed solely as loan security and the refusal to cancel it) cannot be conveniently or appropriately addressed in summary proceedings; therefore the Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.

¶28

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for relief or to lodge a police complaint, if so advised.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.; decision dated 27.01.2026) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India filed by G.Ravichanthiran seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent (District Registrar, Salem District) to pass orders on his representation dated 19.12.2025 by conducting an enquiry into a document dated 03.01.2023 registered as Document No.89/2023 by the second respondent (Sub Registrar, Omalur) and to cancel it, remove the register entry and the encumbrance certificate. The petitioner asserted that he had availed a loan from the sixth respondent (G.Lakshmanan) and, as security, executed a conveyance deed in the sixth respondent's favour on 26.09.2003; the sixth respondent refused to cancel the document. Holding (i) that the registering officer does not have the power to cancel the registered instrument and (ii) that disputed questions of fact arising from the averments cannot be conveniently or appropriately addressed in summary proceedings, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition without costs, leaving the petitioner free to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for relief or lodge a police complaint, if so advised. No precedent was cited and no monetary amount figured in the order.

¶1

W.P.No.549 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.549 of 2026

G.Ravichanthiran

.. Petitioner

1.The District Registrar, District Registration Department, Salem District – 636 001.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar, Omalur Sub Registration Office, Salem District – 636 455.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayampatti Sub Registration Office, Salem District – 636 351.

¶13

4.L.Sakthi @ Sathya

¶14

5.P.Gopal

¶15

6.G.Lakshmanan

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India

¶18

praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 19.12.2025 by conducting an enquiry on the fraudulent document dated 03.01.2023 registered as Document No.89/2023 by the second respondent and cancel the same, consequently to remove the entry made in the register and the encumbrance certificate. 1/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.549 of 2026

¶21

For Petitioner : Dr.S.Lingesh For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner asserts that he had availed a loan from the sixth respondent and that as security in respect thereof, he executed a conveyance deed in favour of the sixth respondent on 26.09.2003. According to the petitioner, though the conveyance was executed as security for loan, the sixth respondent refused to cancel the document. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks an enquiry and the consequent cancellation of document dated 03.01.2023 bearing Document No.89 of 2023.

¶24

Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. He submits that the petitioner should lodge a police complaint if he intends to complain about the fraudulent life certificate.

¶25

The registering officer does not have the power to cancel the registered instrument. From the averments in the affidavit in support of this writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner asserts that he executed a conveyance in favour of the sixth respondent 2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.549 of 2026

¶28

solely as security for a loan. The petitioner has also stated that the sixth respondent refused to cancel the document. Inference flows from the above that there are disputed questions of fact which cannot be conveniently or appropriately addressed in summary proceedings. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.

¶29

For reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed

¶30

without any order as to costs by leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for relief or to lodge a police complaint, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

27.01.2026

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1.The District Registrar, District Registration Department, Salem District – 636 001.

¶35

2.The Sub Registrar, Omalur Sub Registration Office, Salem District – 636 455.

¶36

3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayampatti Sub Registration Office, Salem District – 636 351.

¶37

3/4

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.549 of 2026

¶40

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi

W.P.No.549 of 2026

27.01.2026

4/4

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

G.Ravichanthiran v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ravichanthiran v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs The Revisionary Authority and Additional Secretary

Murugesan Vs the District Registrar (Societies)

M/S.a Rank Holdings Private Limited Vs The Secretary to Government

V.Sulochana Vs the Sub - Registrar

K.Ramesh Vs the Deputy Inspector for Registration

P.Ramalingam Vs The Secretary and Commissioner