Madras High Court
Ganesan vs P.Manikandan on 24 February, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)Nos.1062 and 1064 of 2025
W.A(MD)No.164 of 2025
Ganesan ... Appellant
vs.
1. P.Manikandan
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome Highways,
Chennai - 600 028.
3. The District Registrar (Admn)
Office of the District Registrar,
Madurai.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
5. The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Thirumangalam Taluk Office,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
6. Ramakrishnan
7. A.R.Vignesh
8. Sri Devi ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 28.11.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.16979 of
2024.
For Appellant : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For R1 : Mr.T.Manikandan
For R2 to R5 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
W.A(MD)No.165 of 2025
Ganesan ... Appellant
vs.
1. P.Manikandan
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome Highways,
Chennai - 600 028.
3. The District Registrar(Admn),
Office of the District Registrar,
Madurai.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirumangalam, Madurai.
5. The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Chekkanoorani,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
Madurai District.
6. Ramakrishnan
7. A.R.Vignesh
8. Sri Devi ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 28.11.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.23545 of
2024.
For Appellant : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For R1 : Mr.T.Manikandan
For R2 to R5 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
These writ appeals are filed against the common order dated
28.11.2024 made in W.P(MD)Nos.16979 and 23545 of 2024.
2. The facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are as
follows:
The property in S.No.429/1A1A measuring to an extent of 35½
cents situated at Karagampadi Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
District, was the ancestral property devolved on the 6th respondent,
through family partition. The 1st respondent in both the appeals
purchased the said property from the 6th respondent, vide sale deed
dated 26.08.2019. Thereafter, the revenue records in respect of the said
property also got mutated in the name of the 1st respondent. While so,
the appellant in both the appeals made a complaint to the Revenue
Divisional Officer, seeking to cancel the sale deed dated 26.08.2019 and
Patta No.4320 standing in the name of the 1st respondent, on the ground
that he purchased the subject property previously. On the said
complaint, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and
directed the parties to approach the District Revenue Officer. However,
the appellant approached the District Registrar, who after conducting
enquiry, by order dated 29.08.2023, cancelled the sale deed dated
26.08.2019 executed in favour of the 1st respondent.
2.1. Challenging the said order, the 1st respondent preferred a
statutory appeal before the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai,
and the same was pending. While so, taking advantage of cancellation
of the sale deed, the appellant took steps for recording of encumbrance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
in respect of the subject property. Hence, the 1st respondent filed writ
petitions seeking disposal of the abovesaid statutory appeal and to
remove the encumbrance made in the encumbrance register in respect of
the subject property.
2.2. The Writ Court, relying upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel and others Vs. Inspector General of
Registration and others reported in 2024 (4) CTC 769, held that
cancellation of the sale deed by the District Registrar cannot be
sustained and it has become void. Consequently, the Writ Court
directed the District Registrar to make an entry of the order passed in
the present writ petitions in the books of records in respect of the subject
property. The Writ Court also granted liberty to the appellant to
approach the civil court for appropriate relief. Aggrieved by the said
order, the 5th respondent in the writ petitions have come forward with
these appeals.
3. Though the appellant in the memorandum of appeals have
raised various grounds, we are not inclined to go into the same, in view
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
of the abovesaid Division Bench judgment in M.Kathirvel's case (supra)
whereby, Section 77-A, which confers power on the Registrar to cancel
the registration of a document either on his own or on a complaint by
any person, itself was declared as unconstitutional, holding that the
amendment introducing the said provision is beyond the scope, purpose
and object of Registration Act. The Writ Court also relying upon the
said judgment, has held that the cancellation of the sale deed by the
District Registrar is void and consequently directed him to make entry
of the order passed in the writ petitions in the books of records in
respect of the property in question.
4. In M.Kathirvel's case (supra), the Division Bench has also
directed that when there is a bona fide dispute involving contentious
question of law, the Registering Officer has to relegate the parties to
Civil Court. Therefore, the remedy available to the parties is to
approach the competent Civil Court .
5. We do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order
passed by the Writ Court. It is open to the parties concerned to
approach the appropriate Civil Court for appropriate relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
24.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome Highways,
Chennai - 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Admn)
Office of the District Registrar,
Madurai.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Thirumangalam Taluk Office,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)Nos.164 and 165 of 2025
DATED : 24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
