Madras High Court
M/S.Ivrcl Psc Pipes Private Limited vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 27 March, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.34457 of 2024
W.P.No.31715 of 2024:
1.M/s.IVRCL PSC Pipes Private Limited,
M-22/3RT, Vijay Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad – 500 057.
2.M/s. Palladium Infrastructures & Projects Limited,
M-22/3RT, Vijay Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad – 500 057.
3.M/s.IVR Prime Developers (Nellore) Private Limited,
8-2-608-1-6, Naim Chambers,
Beside Of Coffee Shop, Road No.10,
Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 034.
Represented by its
Registered Power of Attorney;
A.M.Mohan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Mandaveli,
Chennai – 600 004.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
2.The District Registrar,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sunguvarchattiram,
Sriperumpudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
4.M.Lakshmanan
5.E.Seeralan
6.S.Kavitha .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.31715 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing
(a) the 2nd and 3rd respondents to conduct enquiry and pass an order
under the provision of the Registration Act that the sale deeds in Doc No
967 of 2017 dated 03.02.2017 and Doc. No 1253 of 2020 dated
10.07.2020 are as void, fraudulent transactions as the above sale deeds
registered based on intentional false statements of the 4th, 5th and 6th
respondents in line with the decision of this honble Court reported in
W.P. (MD) No 10177 of 2021 dated 17.06.2021 paragraphs 10, 11 in
S.R.M. Packiri Rajan V The Inspector General of Registration and the
Honble Apex Court decision 2021 SCC Online SC 1097 Paragraphs 17,
18 in Keal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar; and
(b) Direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to commence Criminal
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
prosecution as against the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents for the offences
committed under Sec. 82and 83 of the Registration Act 1908 in
registering sale deeds in Doc. No 967 of 2017 dated 03.02.2017 on the
pretext that entire sale consideration was paid to the petitioner by the 4th
respondent other than online, cheque and demand draft mode running
contrary to the provisions of the income tax Act and in Doc. No 1253 of
2020 dated 10.07.2020 on the file of the 3rd respondent by furnishing
false statements with regard to payment of sale consideration based on
the false negotiable instruments;
(c) Consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to make entry in the
encumbrance certificate that the two sale deeds in Doc. No 967 of 2017
dated 03.02.2017 and Doc No. 1253 o f2020 dated 10.07.2020 registered
on file of 3rd respondent are void and fraudulent transactions.
(In W.P.No.31715 of 2024):
For petitioners : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Harish
Government Advocate
W.P.No.11286 of 2025:
1.M/s.IVRCL PSC Pipes Private Limited,
M-22/3RT, Vijay Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad – 500 057.
2.M/s. Palladium Infrastructures & Projects Limited,
M-22/3RT, Vijay Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad – 500 057.
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
3.M/s.IVR Prime Developers (Nellore) Private Limited,
8-2-608-1-6, Naim Chambers,
Beside Of Coffee Shop, Road No.10,
Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 034.
Represented by its
Registered Power of Attorney;
A.M.Mohan .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Sriperumpudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Sunguvarchattiram,
Sriperumpudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
3.M.Lakshmanan
4.E.Seeralan
5.S.Kavitha .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.11286 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing
the 1st respondent to lodge a criminal complaint invoking Section 17 and
18 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, as against the
respondents 4 & 5 for having furnished false information on its file, for
changing the patta for the lands in Survey No.553/7B, 553/7C, 553/7D,
548/2, 548/3A, 548/7A, 554/1 & 567/1 totally to an extent of 09.80
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
Acres situated in “B” Chittoor Village, Sandhavellore, Sriperumpudur
Taluk, Kancheepuram District in the name of the respondents 4 & 5 vide
their application dated 23.09.2024 based on the sale deed in Document
No.1253 of 2020 dated 10.07.2020 which was registered on the file of
the 2nd respondent showing the cheques already used as sale
consideration in the previous sale deed in Document No.2376/2017 dated
01.09.2017 by the 5th respondent and other stale, non-existent cheques
also as sale consideration for the above sale deed dated 10.07.2020.
(In W.P.No.11286 of 2025):
For petitioners : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.P.Sathish
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.31715 of 2024 has been filed for the issue of writ of
mandamus directing the respondents 2 & 3 to conduct an enquiry and to
pass orders to the effect that the sale deeds dated 03.02.2017 and
10.07.2020 are void and borne out of fraudulent transactions and for
further direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to commence criminal
prosecution against the respondents 4 to 6 under Sections 82 & 83 of the
Registration Act and for a further direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to
make necessary entry in the encumbrance certificate to the effect that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
sale deeds dated 03.02.2017 and 10.07.2020 are void and fraudulent
transactions.
2.W.P.No.11286 of 2025 has been filed for the issue of writ of
mandamus directing the 1st respondent to lodge a complaint invoking the
power under Sections 17 & 18 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act as
against the respondents 4 & 5 for having furnished false information and
transferring the patta in their name with respect to the subject property.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.31715 of 2024
and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 & 2 in
W.P.No.11286 of 2025.
4.The main grievance that has been expressed on the side of the
petitioners is that the petitioner became the power agent by virtue of a
power of attorney document dated 10.07.2015 registered as Document
No.2849 of 2015. Based on this power of attorney document, the
immovable property was sold to the 4th respondent for an agreed sale
consideration of Rs.2,69,38,000/-. A substantial part of the sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
consideration was not paid to the tune of Rs.2,01,88,000/-. As on the date
of registration, the 4th respondent paid only a sale consideration of
Rs.27,50,000/- and promised to pay the remaining sale consideration.
Believing the words of the 4th respondent, the sale deed was registered
and after the registration of sale deed, the balance sale consideration was
not paid. In turn, the 4th respondent executed a power of attorney dated
03.02.2017 in favour of one Karthik, who transferred a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- on behalf of the 4th respondent to the petitioners towards
part sale consideration. The 4th respondent also admitted the fact that the
entire sale consideration was not paid and a Memo of Understanding was
also entered into on 03.03.2017.
5.The further case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent
subsequently canceled the power of attorney given in favour of the said
Karthik and even without receiving a single pie as a sale consideration
from the respondents 5 & 6, executed the sale deed in their favour dated
10.07.2020 registered as document No.1253 of 2020.
6.The specific case of the petitioner is that the fraud committed by
the respondents 4, 5 & 6 is apparent on the face of the document and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
cheques which were already mentioned as sale consideration in the
previous sale deed was also mentioned in the present sale deed dated
10.07.2020. The other cheque numbers which were mentioned in the sale
deed was not even in use and the same is substantiated through the letter
issued from the Bank of India dated 19.12.2023. Thereby, the
respondents 5 & 6 purchased the property without even paying a single
pie as consideration and thereby the respondents 4 & 5 had cheated the
petitioner and the property was grabbed.
7.An FIR came to be registered based on the complaint given by
the above Karthik in Crime No.21 of 2020 wherein the power agent
Mohan was arrayed as A3 and the respondents 4 to 6 were arrayed as A1,
A4 & A5. On completion of the investigation, a final report was also
filed and since the said Mohan was arrayed as A3, he filed a quash
petition and the same was dismissed by this Court dated 15.07.2022. SLP
was filed against the said order and the same was allowed by an order
dated 20.03.2024 and the final report was quashed in so far as the said
Mohan is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
8.It is under these circumstances, representations were made to the
registering authority for commencing prosecution under Sections 82 &
83 of the Registration Act and to declare the sale deeds dated 03.02.2017
and 10.07.2020 is void and fraudulent and to make necessary entry in the
encumbrance certificate. Since the same was not considered,
W.P.No.31715 of 2024 was filed before this Court.
9.On the same cause of action, since the patta was transferred in
the name of the subsequent purchasers, who are respondents 4 & 5 in
W.P.No.11286 of 2025, the petitioner is seeking for initiating criminal
complaint by directing the 1st respondent to invoke Sections 17 & 18 of
the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act.
10.In the considered view of this Court, the dispute between the
parties pertains to non payment of the entire sale consideration and the
further transaction that was entered into whereby it is alleged that the
property was sold without receiving any consideration, only with a view
to defraud the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
11.In so far as the claim made by the petitioner to declare the
documents as fraudulent and as null and void, no such power is available
under the Registration Act since Section 77A of the Registration Act has
already been declared as unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this
Court in M.Kathirvel Vs. Inspector General of Registration reported in
[(2024) 4 CTC 769].
12.In the very same judgment, the Division Bench also considered
the scope of Section 68(2) of the Act and it was held that registering
authority cannot declare any document as null and void or fraudulent. In
view of the same, as on today, there is no power available to the
registering authority to cancel any document or to declare any document
as null and void.
13.That leaves this Court with the other limb of the relief sought
for by the petitioner to initiate prosecution against the private
respondents under Sections 82 & 83 of the Registration Act.
14.In so far as penalty, that has been dealt with under Section 82 of
the Act, it deals with four classes of offences and they are:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
(a)Intentionally making false statement before the registering
officers;
(b)Intentionally delivering to a registering officer false copy or
translation of a document or a map or a plan;
(c)False presentation or any impersonation in presentation of a
document;
(d)Abatement of any of the above three offences.
15.In so far as the launching of prosecution under Section 83 of the
Act is concerned, it pertains to those offences which are committed under
the Registration Act. Therefore, it is relatable to Section 82 of the Act.
16.In the case in hand, the main dispute is with regard to the
offence of alleged cheating where the entire sale consideration was not
paid and the property was also subsequently dealt with and sold to the
subsequent purchasers without receiving any amount as sale
consideration. In so far as the offence of cheating is concerned, already a
criminal prosecution has been launched in Crime No.21 of 2020 and the
police report has been filed and the private respondents have been shown
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
as accused persons. In view of the same, no useful purpose will be served
in launching one more prosecution under Section 83 of the Registration
Act. In any case, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the
counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent has taken the following stand:
“7.With regard to Para 13 to 20 of the
affidavit, it is submitted that in Vidyadhar v.
Manikrao & Anr.14 the Supreme Court held
that the words "price paid or promised or part
paid and part promised" indicates that actual
payment of the whole of the price at the time of
the execution of the Sale Deed is not a sine qua
non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole
of the price is not paid, but the document is
executed, and thereafter registered, the sale
would be complete, and the title would pass on
to the transferee under the transaction. The
non-payment of a part of the sale price would
not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title
in the property has already passed, even if the
balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale
could not be invalidated on this ground. The
aforesaid Judgment has been followed in the
case of Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali (Gajra)... on 9 July, 2020 AIR 2020
SUPREME COURT 3310. The Petitioner is
having remedy before the Civil Court which will
be in a position to adjudicate the issue by
examining the evidence of both oral and
documentary and therefore the Petitioner
cannot invoke the Writ jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
17.It is therefore clear from the above stand taken by the 3rd
respondent that the consideration which has not allegedly been paid does
not create a ground for launching a prosecution under Section 83 of the
Act and therefore, the registration department has taken a stand that the
petitioner cannot seek for such a remedy in the present writ petition.
18.In the considered view of this Court, the stand that has been
taken by the 3rd respondent is perfectly in order and the nature of dispute
that is sought to be agitated in the present writ petition requires a full
fledged trial and appreciation of evidence and the said process cannot be
undertaken in a writ petition.
19.In so far as the relief that has been claimed in W.P.No.11286 of
2025, Section 17 deals with a penalty for furnishing a false information
before the revenue authorities under the Patta Passbook Act. Section 18
deals with a complaint that can be given for the offences punishable
under the Patta Passbook Act. Based on the sale deed executed in favour
of the respondents 4 & 5, the patta has been mutated in their name. This
mutation of patta has taken place purely based on the sale deed which is
yet to be challenged before the competent Civil Court. Just because there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
are some suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the sale
deed and the criminal prosecution has been launched and the criminal
case is pending, that by itself does not give rise to launching yet another
prosecution under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act.
20.In fine, the relief as sought for by the petitioner in both the writ
petitions cannot be granted by this Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved by
the registration of the sale deeds, it is left open to the petitioner to
approach the competent Civil Court and seek for the appropriate relief
independently. The criminal prosecution has already been launched and
it is pending before the competent Criminal Court and it is for the private
respondents to establish their defense in the said case. This Court cannot
parallelly ask the registering authority and the revenue authorities to
launch a criminal prosecution against the private respondents based on
very same set of facts for which a criminal prosecution has already been
launched in Crime No.21 of 2020.
21.It is made clear that any of the findings or observations made in
these writ petitions will not stand in the way of the petitioner from
prosecuting their case before the competent Civil Court questioning the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
alleged fraudulent sale deeds and proceeding further in accordance with
law.
22.In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of in the above
terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.
27.03.2025
(2/2)
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The District Registrar,
Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sunguvarchattiram,
Sriperumpudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Sriperumpudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
W.P.Nos.31715 of 2024 & 11286 of 2025
27.03.2025
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:50:45 pm )
