Madras High Court
K.R.Krishnamoorthy vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 26 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.1600 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.1600 of 2024
and W.M.P(MD).No.1623 of 2024
K.R.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Madurai.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the third respondent and quash the cheque slip letter No.
8/2023 dated 27.12.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the
third respondent to register the general power of attorney dated
27.11.2023 presented for adjudication by the petitioner.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.1600 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition seeks to quash the proceedings of the Sub-
Registrar at Thirupparankundram, in Ma;T Fwpg;G rPl;L vz;.8/2023,
dated 27.12.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner is that by a document dated
25.10.1893 registered as Doc No.2955 of 1893 one Lakshmana
Bagavathar purchased 12.09 acres in Nilaiyur Bit-1 Village,
Koothiyarkundu Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. The
property has been in the family of Lakshmana Bagavathar ever since.
Subsequently, the family members entered into Muchalikka on
14.12.1962 and a joint patta was granted to the legal heirs and
descendants of the said Lakshmana Bagavathar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:35 pm )
3. Due to several circumstances, personal and occupational, the
legal heirs of Lakshmana Bagavathar have settled across the globe.
These heirs have executed a power of attorney in favour of the writ
petitioner. The writ petitioner presented documents relating to three
deeds of power of attorney dated 27.11.2023, 06.12.2023 and 07.02.2023
together with patta copies for registration. The registration of these
documents were rejected by the third respondent on the ground that the
death certificate of ancestor had not been produced and Rule 55A of the
Registration Rules bars registration of power of attorney deeds.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition.
4. I heard Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar for the petitioner and
Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the
respondents.
5. The petitioner had not presented a document seeking transfer of
title from the legal descendants of Lakshmana Bagavathar in his favour.
All the three documents are merely power of attorney deeds given by the
persons residing abroad in favour of the writ petitioner. At the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:35 pm )
registration of document, the Sub-Registrar is not acting as quasi judicial
authority or a civil Court in order to probe into the aspect whether the
persons who have registered the document are in fact the legal
descendants of Late. Lakshmana Bagavathar.
6. Further more, to demand the death certificate and legal heirship
certificate of persons, who have passed more than a century ago, is
expecting the writ petitioner to perform an impossible task. Incase, the
petitioner is not empowered by certain legal heirs, obviously any
document presented by him, would not bind the shares of such persons.
The Sub-Registrar need not act as caveator representing the interest of
those persons, who are the descendants of Late.Lakshmana Bagavathar,
but have not empowered the writ petitioner.
7. The document is mere power of attorney deed and it had been
presented only for the purpose of adjudication. The impugned order
exceeds the powers conferred on the Sub-Registrar by the Registration
Act and Rules made thereunder. The position of law has been settled by
a judgment of this Court in the case of P.Pappu Vs., The Sub-Registrar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:35 pm )
Rasipuram, reported in 2024 (5) CTC 575. The Division Bench had
made it clear that the Sub-Registrar cannot demand records, which are
not mandatory as per the Registration Act and the Rules.
8. Respectively applying the verdict to the facts of the present case,
the impugned check slip in Letter No.8/2023 dated 27.12.2023 passed by
the third respondent is hereby quashed. There shall be a direction to the
third respondent to register the power of attorney deeds executed in
favour of the petitioner on 27.11.2023, 06.12.2023 and 07.02.2023.
9. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar states that the power of attorney deeds
would be registered within a period of two(2) weeks from today (i.e.,
26.02.2025). This statement is recorded.
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 26.02.2025
NCC :Yes / No
Rmk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:35 pm )
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Madurai.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:35 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:35 pm )
