Madras High Court
Ravi Mchara vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 12 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.2426 of 2025
----------------------------
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No. 2426 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.18632 of 2025
Ravi Mchara ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Coimbatore Zone,
Office of DIG Registration, Coimbatore.
3.The District Registrar (Admin) (AIG Cadre),
Office of District Registrar, Coimbatore.
4.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o. Sub Registrar, Madukkarai,
Coimbatore District.
5.V.Thulasimani
6.Selvarathinam
7.S.Selvanayagi
8.S.Selvakrishna
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 11:05:40 am )
W.A.No.2426 of 2025
----------------------------
9.S.Selvasriram
10.K.G.Ganesh
11.The Tahsildar,
Madukarai Taluk,
Coimbatore District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
to set aside the impugned order in respect of Para 12 and 13 in WP.No.25817 of
2023 dated 04.03.1015 and consequently order the deletion consequential
impugned entires carried out by the 4th respondent in settlement deed dated
07.12.2022 and sale deed dated 24.07.2023 which was registered by the 4th
respondent without title in favour of the 10th respondent.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Arun
For Dr.S.Ambigai Dass
For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan,
Spl.GP for R1 to R4 and R11
Mr.N.Manokaran for R5 to R9
Mr.K.Sudhakar for R10
******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Writ Appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated
04.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.25817 of 2023.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The Writ Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 11:05:40 am )
----------------------------
has been instituted challenging the orders passed by the Inspector General of
Registration dated 31.07.2018 and the orders passed by the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration dated 21.06.2022 modifying the orders of the District
Registrar. The 5th respondent Smt.V.Tulasimani filed a complaint to the District
Registrar to cancel the sale deed dated 13.10.2005 under Section 68(2) of the
Registration Act. Based on the circular issued by the Inspector General of
Registration, the District Registrar passed an order that the sale deed dated
13.10.2005 has been fraudulently registered and directed the Sub-Registrar not
to carryout further transactions in respect of the property. However, the District
Registrar had not cancelled the sale deed, but, held that the sale deed has been
registered fraudulently.
3. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.27297 of 2023 has been instituted and a
direction was issued to the writ petitioner to approach the appellate authority.
Thus, the appeal was preferred before the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration, the 2nd respondent. During the interregnum period the 5th
respondent Tmt.Tulasimani settled the subject property in favour of the
respondents 6 to 9 by way of a settlement deed dated 07.12.2022. Thereafter, a
civil suit was instituted in O.S.No.1383 of 2011. In view of the order of the
Deputy Inspector General of Registration the suit in O.S.No.1383 of 2011 re-
numbered as O.S.No.330 of 2020 was withdrawn on 03.02.2023. The appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 11:05:40 am )
----------------------------
Authority passed an order on 20.07.2023 and directed the parties to settle the
dispute before the competent civil Court of law by modifying the order of the
District Registrar.
4. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the appellant herein filed a
suit in O.S.No.149 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District Court,
Coimbatore to declare that the sale deed dated 13.10.2005 is valid and to
declare the settlement deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the
respondents 6 to 9 dated 07.12.2022 as null and void and non-est in law.
Consequential sale deeds executed are also under challenge in the civil suit.
5. The sale deed registered as Doc.No.3053 of 2005 dated 13.10.2005
was declared as fraudulent registration based on the circular dated 31.07.2018
issued by the Inspector General of Registration under Section 68(2) of the
Registration Act. It is not in dispute that Section 77A conferring power on the
District Registrar to cancel the document has been struck down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of M.Kathirvel Vs. Inspector General of
Registration reported in 2024 (4) CTC 769. The circular issued by the
Inspector General of Registration was also quashed. The power granted to the
District Registrar to cancel the registered documents is no more available.
Therefore, the parties are bound to settle the issues by approaching the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 11:05:40 am )
----------------------------
competent civil Court of law.
6. The writ Court found that the suit instituted by the appellant in
O.S.No.149 of 2024 is pending. The relief sought for in the suit is for a
declaration to declare the sale deed and the settlement deed and the
consequential sale deeds executed between the parties as null and void. The
writ Court further considered that the earlier suit filed in O.S.No.1383 of 2011
renumbered as O.S.No.330 of 2020 was withdrawn. In this context, the writ
Court made an observation that the other parties may prefer a counter claim in
the pending suit or institute a fresh suit if permissible.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that the
parties have to crystallize their civil rights in the pending suit by way of
adjudication. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the counter claim has
also been filed. Under these circumstances, it would be unnecessary for the writ
Court to adjudicate the disputed issues of civil nature. Since the power
conferred under Section 77A and the circular issued under Section 68(2) of the
Registration Act have been struck down, the High Court need not adjudicate the
disputed facts relating to the relief seeking cancellation of the registered
documents viz., the settlement deed and sale deeds in the present case. It is for
the parties to work out their remedy before the civil Court in the manner known
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 11:05:40 am )
----------------------------
to law.
8. Thus this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the findings
made by the learned Single Judge in the writ order impugned in this Writ
Appeal. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
12.09.2025
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 11:05:40 am )
----------------------------
To:
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Coimbatore Zone,
Office of DIG Registration, Coimbatore.
3.The District Registrar (Admin) (AIG Cadre),
Office of District Registrar, Coimbatore.
4.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o. Sub Registrar, Madukkarai,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Madukarai Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 11:05:40 am )
----------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
dsa
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 11:05:40 am )
