Madras High Court
S.Navin Rengasamy vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 6 March, 2025
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.3150 of 2025
W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024
S.Navin Rengasamy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Madurai Region,
Madurai.
2.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Iyyampalayam Sub Registration Office,
Dindigul District - 624 204.
4.R.Suresh
5.Krishnapriya Parthasarathy .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order issued by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
5556/Aa4/2023 dated 04.03.2024 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to cancel the registration of the
Settlement Deed registered as Document No.1145/2019 registered on the file of
the 3rd respondent and for other reliefs.
For Petitioner : M/s.Krishnaveni
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Harish
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam
Government Advocate
For R-4 : Mr.J.Lawrence
For R-5 : Mr.R.Murali
for Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar
W.P.(MD).No.4398 of 2025
P.Krishnapriya .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Integrated Complex of Registration Department,
TNAU Nagar, Rajakampeeram,
Y.Othakadai,
Madurai - 625 107.
2.The District Registrar (Administrative),
District Registrar Office,
No.1, Dindigul East, Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Ayyampalayam Sub-Registrar Office,
Shop No.13 1 2B,
Perumalkoil Street,
Ayyampalayam, Dindigul District 624 204.
4.R.Suresh
5.S.Naveen Rengasamy .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings
bearing Na.Ka.No.5556/A4/2023 dated 04.03.2024 passed by the 1st respondent
and quash the same in respect of direction given therein to approach the Civil
Court to render a judgment and till then preventing the petitioner from
encumbering the property owned by her.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali
for Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R-4 : Mr.J.Lawrence
For R-5 : Mr.S.Harish
COMMON ORDER
W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024 and W.P.(MD).No.4398 of 2025 are filed
challenging the very same proceedings of the first respondent. Hence, they were
clubbed together by an order dated 25.02.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their ranks in
W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024.
3. The petitioner pleads that he was benefitted with a “WILL” on
10.08.2017 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Iyyampalayam, Dindigul
District. This “WILL” had been executed by one R.Jeyalakshmi, who, according
to the petitioner, is the owner of the property. The said Jeyalakshmi had divided
the property into three schedules. The 'C' schedule mentioned property to the
“WILL” was given as a life estate to the fourth respondent. After his life time, it
would pass to the writ petitioner for life and finally, absolute right would vest in
the children born to the writ petitioner. The petitioner claims that, without his
knowledge, the fourth respondent executed a deed of settlement dated
30.07.2019 in favour of his aunt, one Krishnapriya Parthasarathy, who is the
fifth respondent in W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024.
4. The plea of the writ petitioner is that as the fourth respondent has no
right to alienate the property, hence, the settlement deed executed in favour of
the fifth respondent is non-est, illegal and void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
5. The petitioner has given a representation to the second respondent on
12.03.2022, seeking to cancel the settlement deed. As the representation was
pending, he moved this Court by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4906
of 2022. A direction was given to dispose of the said representation within a
period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order after
hearing the fourth and fifth respondents herein. A further direction was given to
the State respondents, namely, the respondents 2 and 3 herein not to receive any
document of alienation of the subject property.
6. In obedience to the orders passed by this Court, the District Registrar
heard the petitioner and the fifth respondent herein and dismissed the
representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved
this Court by way of another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.17292 of 2022.
7. Noticing that an appeal is maintainable from the order passed by the
District Registrar, Dindigul District to the Inspector General of Registration,
Madurai, this Court granted 41 days time to the petitioner to prefer an appeal
and dismissed the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
8. An appeal was filed before the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration, Madurai Region, Madurai/the first respondent herein on
14.06.2023. The first respondent, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal,
directing the parties to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court to work out their
rights. At the time of dismissal of the appeal, the first respondent directed that
there should be no further alienation of the property pending the lis between the
parties.
9. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal in its entirety, the writ
petitioner has moved W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024. Feeling aggrieved over the
order in the nature of an injunction restraining alienation, the fifth respondent
has presented W.P.(MD).No.4398 of 2025.
10. I heard Ms.Krishnaveni, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Harish for
the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024 and the fifth respondent in W.P.
(MD).No.4398 of 2025, Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.
(MD).No.4398 of 2025, Mr.J.Lawrence for the fourth respondent in both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
petitions and Mr.R.Murali for Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar for the fifth respondent
in W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024 and the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4398 of
2025.
11. The narration of the facts goes to show that the writ petitioner had
literally sought for a declaration that the settlement deed executed by the fourth
respondent in favour of the fifth respondent on 30.07.2019 is null and void.
Such a power is not available with the respondents 1 to 3. In fact, the State of
Tamil Nadu attempted to confer such a power on the respondents 1 and 2. This
was by amending the Registration Act by inserting Section 77A with effect from
2021. However, a Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel Vs. Inspector
General of Registration and others, 2024 (4) CTC 769, declared the said
provision as unconstitutional.
12. It is settled position of law that the Registering Authority does not
perform any quasi-judicial or exercise any judicial powers at the time of
registration. The power, that is exercised by the Registering Authority, is merely
administrative in nature. A document which limits, creates or assigns rights,
alone need to be registered. For this purpose, the offices of respondents 1 to 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
have been created. By their act of registration, they cannot limit, assign or
extinguish any right, which exists in a person.
13. I do not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by
the respondents 1 and 2, holding that being disputed questions of fact and law,
the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 necessarily have to approach the
Civil Court. The power, which is not available to them by virtue of the Section,
does not get enriched by virtue of a Circular. I should hasten to add here that the
Circular, which gave the power to the authorities, has also subsequently been
declared as unconstitutional in M.Kathirvel's case. The result of this discussion
is that the respondents 1 and 2 had rightly come to the conclusion that they do
not have jurisdiction to declare a document to be null and void and therefore,
the rejection of the petition/appeal filed by the writ petitioner does not require
any interference.
14. Now turning to the Writ Petition filed by the fifth respondent (W.P.
(MD).No.4398 of 2025), she is not aggrieved over the orders passed by the first
and second respondents in directing the writ petitioner to approach the
jurisdictional Civil Court. She is only aggrieved over the fact that an order in
the nature of injunction not to alienate or encumber the property has been
granted by the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
15. When powers of Civil Court are not available with the first and
second respondents, a power to grant an interim order pending disposal of the
suit in the nature of injunction is certainly not available to both the respondents.
That portion of the order interferes with the right of a person to exercise her
constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Article
300-A demands that the right to property can be restricted only under the
authority of law. When the first and second respondents do not have that
authority, an order in the nature of injunction is certainly not sustainable.
16. In the light of the above discussion, I am inclined to pass the
following order:
(i) W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024 stands dismissed.
(ii) W.P.(MD).No.4398 of 2025 stands allowed. The impugned order is set
aside, insofar, as it restrains the petitioner not to present any document of
alienation.
(iii) It is open to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 to
approach the jurisdictional Civil Court to work out their rights.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
(iv) It is open to the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024 to
point out to the Civil Court regarding these Writ Petitions and if permissible, to
claim exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition stands closed.
06.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Madurai Region,
Madurai.
2.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Iyyampalayam Sub Registration Office,
Dindigul District - 624 204.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
and 4398 of 2025
06.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 09:50:40 pm )
