Disposed¶35

Chinnathambi P v. The District Registrar (Administration)

Madras HC5 Mar 2026WP(MD)/5963/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registration Act Section 83 inquiry refused; Section 77-A declared unconstitutional by larger Bench; fraudulent document execution by sibling claiming sole ownership; registrar cannot prosecute executants; remedies left to police complaint and civil suit for annulment and title; writ disposed; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; 05.03.2026; Pudukkottai; Viralimalai Sub Registrar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the petitioner's liberty kept open to approach the Civil Court and to lodge a police complaint; no direction issued to the 1st and 2nd respondents to initiate prosecution; no opinion expressed on merits; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶35

Chinnathambi P Vs The District Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents should be directed to initiate prosecution against the 3rd and 4th respondents as per Section 83 of the Registration Act, based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.01.2026. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

If criminal offences are made out, the petitioner can lodge a complaint, and she is entitled to move the appropriate civil Court for annulling the document and asserting her title; both liberties are kept open.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Since the inquiry as per Section 77-A of the Act is no longer available, this is not a case which would fall strictly under Section 83 of the Registration Act for the respondents to enquire.

¶34

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioner.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), W.P(MD)No.5963 of 2026, decided 05.03.2026: P. Chinnathambi challenged orders dated 02.02.2026 (District Registrar (Administration), Pudukkottai) and 03.02.2026 (Sub Registrar, Viralimalai) rejecting his representation seeking prosecution of P. Muthusamy and M. Vasantha under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, alleging that one sibling falsely proclaimed sole ownership and alienated family property. Held: with the Section 77-A enquiry no longer available (declared unconstitutional by a larger Bench of the Court), the matter does not fall strictly under Section 83 of the Registration Act for the respondents to enquire; the petitioner's liberties to lodge a police complaint and to approach the civil Court to annul the document and assert title were kept open; no opinion expressed on merits. Writ petition disposed of; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.5963 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 05.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.5963 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.4987 of 2026

P.Chinnathambi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Registrar(Administration) O/o.The District Registrar, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Viralimalai, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

3.P.Muthusamy 4.M.Vasantha ...Respondents

¶13

Writ Petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders vide Na.Ka.No.365/A2/2026, dated 02.02.2026 passed by the first respondent and the subsequent impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.26/2026 dated 03.02.2026 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to initiate prosecution as against the 3^rd and 4^th

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.5963 of 2026

¶17

respondents as per Section 83 of Registration Act, 1908 based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.01.2026.

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Sankar For R1 & R2 :Mr.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned orders dated 02.02.2026 and 03.02.2026 passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents and to

¶21

quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to initiate prosecution as against the 3rd and 4th respondent, as per Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1998, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.01.2026.

¶22

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner and the other siblings have also got a right over the property, one of the brother alone falsely proclaiming that he is the sole owner of the property has alienated and dealt with the properties. When the petitioner made a representation, the authorities have now rejected the same by way of the impugned order holding that by virtue of the order of the larger Bench of this Court declaring section 77-A of the Act, as unconstitutional, no longer the enquiry with reference to fraudulent documents can be conducted.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.5963 of 2026

¶26

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not on

¶27

the said ground but however, the authorities can also verify as per Section 83 of the Registration Act, as to the correctness and also as to the veracity of the executant and the prima facie correctness of the averments made in the document and therefore, he would submit that in that view of the matter, an inquiry be conducted and if it is proved to be a false claim by the said brother, let a criminal complaint be filed in that regard.

¶28

4.The learned Government Advocate taking notice on behalf of the respondents would resist the writ petition.

¶29

5.I have considered the rival submissions made and perused the material records of the case.

¶30

6.If it is the contention of the petitioner that her brother had fraudulently alienated her property. Certainly if criminal offenses are made out and she can lodge a complaint. She is very much entitled to move the appropriate civil Court for annulling the document and asserting her title. Both the said liberties of the petitioner to approach the police authorities for filing criminal complaint and also to approach the civil Court with reference

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.5963 of 2026

¶34

to her title and with reference to the document are kept open. In the meanwhile, when one of the family members assert a wrongful title and execute the document, I am of the view that since the inquiry as per Section 77-A of the Act, is no longer avaliable, I am of the view that this is not a case which would fall strictly under Section 83 of the Registration Act, for the respondents to enquire.

¶35

7.In view thereof, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and also to lodge a police complaint, this writ petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that this Court is not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.03.2026

NCC:Yes/No Ns

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.5963 of 2026

¶41

¶42