Dismissed¶41

P.Elango v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC6 Jan 2026WP(MD)/31847/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unilateral cancellation of sale deed; cancellation deed Document No.3799 of 1993 dated 27.12.1993 (Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti) cancelling sale deed Document No.904/1992 dated 16.03.1992; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; delay/laches in filing writ petition (about 33 years); disputed questions of fact not decidable under Article 226; petitioner directed to civil Court; writ petition dismissed with liberty, miscellaneous petitions closed, no costs; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; respondents include Inspector General of Registration, District Registrar Palayamkottai, Sub Registrar Kovilpatti and private parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil Court; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.Elango Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil Court; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the cancellation deed (Document No.3799 of 1993 dated 27.12.1993) and deletion of the cancellation entries can be entertained and decided by this Court under Article 226, given the disputed questions of fact involved. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

Disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the petitioner has to approach the civil Court and substantiate his case.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is supposed to establish the reason for the delay in filing the writ petition and the other factual aspects.

¶40

Key takeaways

This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Krishnan Ramasamy, J., 06.01.2026) dismissed W.P.(MD)No.31847 of 2025 filed by P.Elango under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash as un-constitutional, arbitrary and illegal the cancellation deed bearing Document No.3799 of 1993 dated 27.12.1993, registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti, which cancelled the sale deed bearing Document No.904/1992 dated 16.03.1992 by which the petitioner's father had purchased the subject property, and consequently to direct deletion of the cancellation entries from the registration records. The Government Advocate objected that the petition was filed after 33 years. The Court held that the petitioner was supposed to establish the reason for the delay and the other factual aspects, and that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided under Article 226, requiring the petitioner to approach the civil Court. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the civil Court; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed; there was no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.31847 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.31847 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.25043 and 25045 of 2025

P.Elango

... Petitioner

The Inspector General of Registration, Office of Inspector General of Registration 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600028.

¶11

The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai 627 002.

¶12

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Kovilpatti 628 501.

¶13

Shanmuga Aachari

¶14

Krishnamoorthy

¶15

Marikumar

¶16

C.Barathi

¶17

J.Haribaskar

¶18

Aandal

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD) No.31847 of 2025

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Revathi

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the cancellation deed bearing Document No.3799 of 1993 dated 27.12.1993, registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti, cancelling the sale deed bearing Document No.904/1992, dated 16.03.1992, registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti and quash the same as un-constitutional, arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct 3^rd respondent to forthwith to delete the relevant entries relating to registration of cancellation of Sale deed in the registration records.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.Sivakumar Rajappan for M/s.Law Shine LLP

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badrum Zamab, Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.T.Selvan for R4 & R5 No appearance for R7 & R8 Unserved – R6, R9 & R10

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified

¶29

Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the cancellation deed bearing Document No.3799 of 1993 dated 27.12.1993, registered on the

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.31847 of 2025

¶33

file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti, cancelling the sale deed bearing Document No.904/1992, dated 16.03.1992, registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti and quash the same as un-constitutional, arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct 3^rd respondent to forthwith to delete the relevant entries relating to registration of cancellation of Sale deed in the registration records.

¶34

2. According to the petitioner, his father has purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed dated 16.03.1992. However, without consent or knowledge, the original vendor has executed a unilateral cancellation deed on 27.12.1993. The said fact has come to the knowledge of the petitioner only recently. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶35

3 . The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3 would submit that after 33 years, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the unilateral cancellation deed dated 27.12.1993. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The private respondents also raising objections for filing of the present Writ Petition.

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.31847 of 2025

¶39

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this

¶40

Court is of the view that the petitioner is supposed to establish the reason for the delay in filing the Writ Petition and the other factual aspects. Further all the disputed question of facts cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner has to approach the civil Court and substantiate his case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶41

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to

¶42

the petitioner to approach the civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

06.01.2026

¶44

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsm

¶45

4/6

¶46

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