Madras High Court
A.A.Kala vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 6 January, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.P.No.39957 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.39957 of 2025
and
W.M.P. No.44887 of 2025
1.A.A.Kala
2.A.A.Varalakshmi
3.A.A.Kumaran
4.A.A.Sastha Prabhu
5.A.A.Dayasankar
6.K.Devi
7.S.Sathya Priya
8.Minor A.S.Ramyasri
Rep. By mother and natural guardian
S.Sathya Priya .. Petitioners
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai Zone, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The District Registrar,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
5.The Sub Registrar,
Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 078.
6.K.Muthu .. Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
W.P.No.39957 of 2025
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records
relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.2621/Aa1/2021 dated 09.09.2022 and to quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Munuswamy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The fourth respondent herein filed an application under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 seeking cancellation of certain registered conveyances and for the effacement of entries relating thereto from the Register of encumbrances. The said request was rejected by order dated 15.04.2021. The said order was carried in appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and such appeal was allowed partly by order dated 09.09.2022. The appellate order is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order dated 15.04.2021 and pointed out that the subject thereof itself indicates that the petitioner's request was for cancellation of the documents mentioned therein. In effect, he contends that the application was in the nature of an application under Section 77-A 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm ) W.P.No.39957 of 2025 of the Registration Act, 1908. On account of Section 77-A being held as unconstitutional in M.Kathirvel and others vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others (2024 (4) CTC 769) (Kathirvel), learned counsel submits that the appellate order cannot be sustained. By referring to the impugned appellate order, learned counsel submits that a finding has been recorded that the fourth respondent is the owner of ¼th share in the properties forming the subject of the documents referred to therein. By referring to the operative part of the order, he points out that it is recorded therein that Document No.2621 of 2021 dated 09.09.2022 was executed by a person who does not have a right to do so and that further documents should not be registered on the basis of the said document. Learned counsel contends that these directions are without authority and are liable to be interfered with.
3. In response, learned counsel for the sixth respondent, first referred to the application made by the sixth respondent. He submits that the application was made under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act and not under Section 77-A. By referring to Section 68(2) read with Rule 116(a), learned counsel submits that it empowers the Registrar to make a note and that such power may be exercised notwithstanding Section 77-A being struck down. By referring to the operative part of the appellate order, learned 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm ) W.P.No.39957 of 2025 counsel submits that cancellation has not been directed. He also relies upon the judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S.Nos.379 and 380 of 2006 to contend that it was concluded therein that the predecessors in interest of the petitioner do not have any title over the suit property. After pointing out that such finding was not interfered with even by the Court in second appeal, learned counsel submits that the conclusion in the operative part does not contain any infirmity. Indeed, he submits that it is fully within the powers of the Registrar under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that Section 77-A was introduced on 16.08.2022 and that the order of the District Registrar was issued prior thereto. Therefore, he submits that the said order was issued under Section 68(2) read with circular dated 08.11.2017. By referring to paragraph No.178 of Kathirvel, learned Special Government Pleader submits that circular dated 08.11.2017 was also held to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench.
5. The relevant findings in the impugned appellate order are as under:
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm ) W.P.No.39957 of 2025 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm ) W.P.No.39957 of 2025 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm ) W.P.No.39957 of 2025
6. The first of the above findings is a finding recorded in respect of title to the relevant property. Such finding is clearly beyond the authority of the appellate authority. The second finding is to the effect that Document No.2621 of 2021 dated 09.09.2022 was executed by a person who does not have the right to execute the same. It further records that no registration of documents should be made on the basis of this document. As pointed out by learned special Government Pleader Section 77-A was not in force when the sixth respondent submitted the application seeking cancellation. The sixth respondent, undoubtedly, requested for cancellation albeit under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act. While holding that Section 77-A is unconstitutional, the Division Bench of this Court also examined Section 68(2) and circular dated 08.11.2017. Paragraph No.178 of the judgment is as under:
178.Section 68[2] of Registration Act was interpreted to confer power on the District Registrar to cancel the document for irregularities in registration. As this Court has already held that Section 77-A of the Act is unconstitutional as it is contrary to the object of the Act, any circular or 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm ) W.P.No.39957 of 2025 order or direction enabling the District Registrar or Registering Officer to cancel registration or invalidating any transaction is unconstitutional and hence, the impugned circular dated 08.11.2017 is declared as unconstitutional. The writ petition stands allowed.
7. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the said order is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of on these terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
06.01.2026 Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mmi To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Chennai Zone, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm ) W.P.No.39957 of 2025
3.The District Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4.The Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
5.The Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 078.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm ) W.P.No.39957 of 2025 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
mmi W.P.No.39957 of 2025 06.01.2026 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )