Madras High Court
Mari vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 2 January, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P (MD).No.26627 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P (MD).No.26627 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)No.22595 of 2024
1.Mari
2.Mariappan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Tirunelveli, Integrated Registrar Office Complex,
St. mark Road, Palayamkottai-627 002.
Tirunelveli District.
2.District Registrar (Administration),
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi-627 811.
3.Arumugam ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records leading to the
order bearing No.e.f.vz;.3791/c/2022 dated 15.02.2024 passed by the first
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent
to remove the entries made in the encumbrance certificate in furtherance of
order bearing No.e.f.vz;.8518/M2/2021 dated 21.04.2022 passed by the
second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P (MD).No.26627 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed as against the order passed by the
first respondent dated 15.02.2024 thereby confirmed the order passed by the
second respondent dated 21.04.2022 thereby declared that the settlement deed
executed by the petitioner's vendor's mother and the sale deed executed by the
petitioner's vendor in favour of the petitioner as fraudulent one and also
directed the registering authority to record the same in the book of records.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
3. The property comprised in Old Natham Survey No.160, presently
Natham Survey No.926/21 to an extent of 0.01.60 hectate situated at Old Ward
No.9 (Presently Ward 8 Mission Temple Main Road Street) at
Sndarapandiapuram Municipality, Surandai Sub Registrar, Tenkasi Registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
District owned by one Mariammal. In turn, she had executed the settlement
deed, dated 01.04.2021 vide document No.1593 of 2021 in favour of her son
Soundarraj. In turn, the said Soundarraj had executed the sale deed in favour of
the petitioner by the registered document No.1614 of 2021, dated 08.04.2021.
While being so, the third respondent herein challenged the settlement deed as
well as the sale deed before the second respondent alleging that both the
documents were executed fraudulently without any title over the property.
After due enquiry, the second respondent concluded that the subject property is
classified as 'Government Poramboke' and earmarked as street, further, it has no
value. However, without following any due process of law, the registering
authority registered the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner's vendor. In
turn, the petitioner's vendor had sold out the subject property in favour of the
petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
after purchasing the subject property, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.
127 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi as against the third
respondent herein for declaration and permanent injunction and in the suit
exparte decree was passed by the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2022.
Aggrieved by the same, no appeal was filed by the third respondent. Without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
filing any appeal, the third respondent simply lodged a complaint before the
second respondent.
5. On perusal of the records revealed that the second respondent
conducted a detailed enquiry on the complaint lodged by the third respondent
and found that the subject property is classified as Government Poramboke and
earmarked as street. While being so, the petitioner simply filed a suit for
declaration and injunction, however, third respondent is no way connected to
the subject property and he remained ex-parte in the suit. When the property is
classified as Government Poramboke and earmarked as street, the registering
authority ought not to have register, that apart, it has no value as per the
revenue records. Therefore, the second respondent has rightly concluded that
the settlement deed, which was executed in favour of the petitioner's vendor, is
fraudulent one and the subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioner is also
fraudulent one. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by
the second respondent and this writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable
to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy.
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No 02.01.2025
Speaking/Non Speaking order
am
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Tirunelveli, Integrated Registrar Office Complex,
St. mark Road, Palayamkottai-627 002.
Tirunelveli District.
2.District Registrar (Administration),
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi-627 811.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
am
02.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
