Madras High Court
A.Poorani vs The District Registrar on 12 March, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.4366 of 2025
and W.M.P.Nos.4878 & 4879 of 2025
A.Poorani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
The District Registrar Office,
Tindivanam.
2.The Sub Registrar,
The Office of Sub Registrar,
Vanur, Villupuram 605 109.
3.M.R.Singhwi
4.P.Thamodharan ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records leading to pass the
impugned proceedings dated 23.05.2022 passed by the 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.No.1608/Aa1/ 2022 and quash the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jagadish
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
Mr.D.Senthilkumar for R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of
the 1st respondent dated 23.05.2022, wherein, the 1st respondent has directed nearly
eight documents to be not valid and illegal and further directed the Sub Registrar
viz., the 2nd respondent to carryout the necessary entries in the Encumbrance
Certificate.
2.Heard Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
respondents 1& 2 and Mr.D.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the 4th respondent.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the
subject property through a registered Sale Deed dated 15.07.2015 registered as
Document No.3998 of 2015. A representation seems to have been made by the 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
respondent before the 1st respondent to the effect that a suit was filed in O.S.No.233
of 2018 before the Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam and based on the same, all the
fabricated documents numbering nine have to be declared as illegal and necessary
entries must be made in the records. The same was acted upon and the impugned
proceedings were issued by the 1st respondent dated 23.05.2022 which has been put
to challenge in the present writ petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent submitted
that there are two sets of documents that were created/fabricated by the parties. One
set of documents were created by the persons belonging to P.S.Arumugam and
other set of documents were created by persons belonging to the petitioner's
husband viz., Azhagappan. All these documents were created without any right or
title over the property to the prejudice of the 3rd and 4th respondents. The learned
counsel further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court questioning
the entire order and whereas, the right of the petitioner is only confined to the
property that has been conveyed in favour of the petitioner through Sale Deed dated
15.07.2015. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner cannot get the entire
order set aside which deals with various other documents and property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st
and 2nd respondents submitted that the 1st respondent has acted upon the suit that
was filed in O.S.No.233 of 2018 by Rajeshwari and others seeking for the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction and based on the same, nearly nine
documents that were created was held to be illegal.
6.In the considered view of this Court, the only power that was available to
the District Registrar was under Section 77A of the Registration Act. The said
provision has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this
Court in M.Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Department of
Registration and others reported in 2024 4 CTC 769. In view of the same, the
District Registrar cannot declare any document to be illegal/not valid or cancel
those documents either in exercise of powers under Section 68(2) and/or 77A of the
Registration Act. If at all any decree has been passed by the competent Civil Court
declaring certain documents to be null and void or declaring the title of the plaintiff
in the property, that decree can be registered as a document and that will
automatically reverse the earlier documents created.
7.In the case in hand, the suit filed in O.S.No.233 of 2018 came to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
dismissed for default on 08.12.2021 and there is nothing to show that the suit has
been revived. If assuming that the suit was decreed, atleast it will give some right
for the successful party to approach the Sub Registrar and seek for the registration
of the decree passed in the suit. When that has not happened in this case, it is not
known as to how the 1st respondent took note of the suit filed and straight away
declared all the documents as invalid.
8.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent was
repeatedly making his submission touching upon the merits of the case and as to
how the parties had committed fraud and created fabricated documents. This
submission made by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent is not material to the
issue in hand since this Court is only testing the power that has been conferred to
the District Registrar under the Registration Act. Hence, the 4th respondent may be
having a genuine case on merits. That by itself cannot confer a power or
jurisdiction on the 1st respondent to declare all the Sale Deeds as invalid and direct
necessary entries to be made in the Encumbrance Register by the Sub Registrar.
9.In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the 1st respondent
did not have any right to issue the proceedings dated 23.05.2022 in the light of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
judgment of the Division Bench in M.Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of
Registration, Department of Registration and others reported in 2024 4 CTC 769.
Therefore, this proceedings dated 23.05.2022 issued by the 1st respondent is non est
in the eye of law. If the impugned order is so declared, there is no use in keeping
the impugned order in subsistence for the others and setting it aside only insofar as
the petitioner is concerned. Once the order is declared as non est, the entire order
has to go since such an order is considered to be non existent in the eye of law.
10.It is left open to the private respondents to agitate their right before the
competent Civil Court and the present order passed in the writ petition will not in
any way have a bearing. That apart, if the private respondents want to stop any
further alienation, it will be left open to them to seek for such a relief in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
11.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. No
Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.03.2025
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssr
To
1.The District Registrar,
The District Registrar Office,
Tindivanam.
2.The Sub Registrar,
The Office of Sub Registrar,
Vanur, Villupuram 605 109.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
and W.M.P.Nos.4878 & 4879 of 2025
12.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 12:55:59 pm )
