Madras High Court
A.Govindarajan vs The Inspector General Of ... on 20 October, 2022
W.P.No.20778 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.20778 of 2015
And
M.P.No.1 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.20289 of 2016
A.Govindarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Registration Department,
Santhome High Road,
Santhome,
Chennai-28.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Virugambakkam Registrar Office,
Virugambakkam,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
second respondent in jilkD vz;.12/2015 dated 21.04.2015 and
quash the same and direct the second respondent to record the decree
of the competent court in O.S.No.12/2011 dated 13.09.2013 on the
file of District Munsif Court at Poonamalee which declares that the sale
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20778 of 2015
deed vide document No.5017 dated 14.09.2006 in the register of Book
No.1 of the second respondent office.
For Petitioner : Ms.P.Shanthini
for M/s.R.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second
respondent in jilkD vz;.12/2015 dated 21.04.2015 and quash the
same and direct the second respondent to record the decree of the
competent court in O.S.No.12/2011 dated 13.09.2013 on the file of
District Munsif Court at Poonamalee which declares that the sale deed
vide document No.5017 dated 14.09.2006 as null and void in the
register of Book No.1 of the second respondent office.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the
property bearing S.Nos.198/1 and 199/1 situated at Old NO.33, New
No.8, 4th Cross Street, Janaki Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai. The
petitioner applied for electricity service connection and he was
informed that his sister raised objection to give electricity connection
in his name. Hence, the petitioner applied for encumbrance certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20778 of 2015
and he came to know that the petitioner's brother – in – law had
alienated the said property in favour of the petitioner's sister by way of
forged sale deed bearing document no.5017/2006 dated 14.09.2006.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that originally, the
petitioner's vendor had executed power of attorney in favour of the
petitioner's brother – in – law, however, subsequently cancelled the
same on 08.09.2006 vide document no.3764/2006 and the petitioner's
brother – in – law was aware of the cancellation of power of attorney.
4.The further case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner's
brother – in – law and the petitioner's sister tried to alienate the
property, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2011 before the
District Munsif Court at Poonamalee for declaration that the sale deed
vide document No.5017/2006 dated 14.09.2006 is null and void and
vide judgment dated 13.09.2013, the said suit was decreed in favour
of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to
the second respondent seeking to record the said decree, however, the
second respondent refused to register the same and issued the
impugned order. Hence, this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20778 of 2015
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that, without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice, if this
Court permits the petitioner to present the decree in O.S.No.12 of
2011 passed by the District Munsif Court at Poonamalee, dated
13.09.2013, in terms of Section 23 of the Registration Act.
6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
7.Perusal of records reveal that the petitioner instead of
presenting the decree for registration, made representation to the
second respondent, based on which the the second respondent has
passed the impugned order. However, if the impugned order is
allowed to stand, it will prevent the petitioner from registering the
decree. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.
8.The impugned order passed by the second respondent in
jilkD vz;.12/2015, dated 21.04.2015 is set aside. The petitioner
is permitted to present the decree in O.S.No.12 of 2011 passed by the
District Munsif Court at Poonamalee, dated 13.09.2013, before the
second respondent for registration in terms of the relevant Acts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20778 of 2015
Rules. If any such document is presented by the petitioner, the
second respondent is directed to entertain the same and pass
appropriate orders on receipt of necessary stamp duty and registration
charges.
9.The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.10.2022
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Registration Department,
Santhome High Road,
Santhome,
Chennai-28.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Virugambakkam Registrar Office,
Virugambakkam,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20778 of 2015
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.20778 of 2015
And
M.P.No.1 of 2015 and
W.M.P.No.20289 of 2016
20.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
