Madras High Court
R.Sivakumar vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 20 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.4563 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.4563 of 2025
R.Sivakumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Inspector General Office,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Office,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The District Registrar (Admin),
District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office Pettai,
Tirunelveli District.
6.H.Ganapathy Ammal
7.R.Hariharan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 11:07:28 am )
W.P.(MD)No.4563 of 2025
8.R.Ravindran
9.R.Radha ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 5
to take action against the respondents 6 to 9 on the petitioner complaint
dated 20.12.2024 given to the respondents 1 to 5 under Sections 82 and
83 of Registration Act after affording due opportunity to private
respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivakumar (Party-in-person)
For R1 to R5 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
Heard party-in-person and Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional
Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to
2. The facts leading to this writ petition, as disclosed in the
affidavit are that the sixth respondent, namely,Thirumathi.Ganapathy
Ammal is the owner of certain properties. The petitioner, namely,
Sivakumar is her eldest son. The respondents 7 and 8 are his younger
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 11:07:28 am )
siblings. The ninth respondent is the wife of eighth respondent, the
sister-in-law of the writ petitioner. The petitioner pleads that the sixth
respondent had settled certain properties in his name. Subsequently, she
cancelled the said settlement deed, albeit unilaterally, and executed
another settlement deed in favour of her other sons. The petitioner
pleads that the eighth respondent had settled the property, which was
given to him by Ganapathy Ammal, in favour of his wife, ninth
respondent. The petitioner also concedes that some portions of the
property, which had been allotted to him by Ganapathy Ammal, were
transferred by him in favour of his wife and children, who have in turn
alienated a smaller extent in favour of a third party.
3. He urges that the eighth respondent had presented a suit for
partition and separate possession and the same had been dismissed by the
civil Court. He adds that on account of the disputes that have arisen
between himself and the respondents 6 to 9, he is unable to enjoy the
property that has been settled in his favour by the sixth respondent.
Hence, he gave a complaint to respondents 1 to 5 to initiate action as
against the respondents 6 to 9 for having committed acts of fraud,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 11:07:28 am )
impersonation, etc. As no action has been initiated by the respondents 1
to 5, he is before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus.
4. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar states that this is an inter se civil dispute
between the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 9. He argues the
Registration Act does not empower the respondents 1 to 5 to resolve the
civil disputes between the parties. He further points out that the power to
declare a document as fraudulent under Section 77A of the Registration
Act has been declared as unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this
Court in M.Kathirvel Vs., The Inspector General of Registration and
others 2024 (4) CTC 769. Hence, he states as the respondents 1 to 5 do
not possess the jurisdiction to deal with disputes between the private
parties, the prayer is untenable.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the party-in-
person as well as Mr.R.Suresh Kumar.
6. The plea of the petitioner is that he has secured rights over
certain properties, which have been farmed out to him by his mother by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 11:07:28 am )
way of a settlement deed. He pleads that unilaterally, the said settlement
deed has been cancelled by the sixth respondent. Whether the sixth
respondent had reserved to herself the right to cancel the settlement deed
or whether the unilateral cancellation is null and void, are matters, which
exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. The
Registration Act does not empower the respondents 1 to 5 to probe into
the matters of title or to declare document as void.
7. The plea that unilateral cancellation ought not to have been
registered by the jurisdictional Sub Registrar, cannot be considered, as on
the date of the cancellation, there was no judgment covering the field.
The law was declared much later. The effect of the judgment is that there
cannot be an unilateral cancellation. In fact, the petitioner has not
challenged the deed in this writ petition. Further, Section 22A(3) of the
Registration Act was also brought into force much after the settlement
deed had been cancelled by the sixth respondent in the year 2011.
8. If the original of the settlement deed that had been executed by
the sixth respondent in favour of the writ petitioner has transferred title,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 11:07:28 am )
then the remedy for the petitioner is to approach the civil Court seeking
for declaration of his title with the relief of injunction or recovery of
possession as the case may be. That being the position of law, I am not in
a position to give a direction that the party-in-person seeks for. By way
of a writ petition, I cannot confer a jurisdiction on an authority, which a
statute has not conferred. It is open to him to approach the jurisdictional
civil Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
9. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
Index :Yes / No 20.02.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Rmk
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Inspector General Office,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Office,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 11:07:28 am )
3.The District Registrar (Admin),
District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office Pettai,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 11:07:28 am )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 11:07:28 am )
