[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
A.A.Kala vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 6 January, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.P.No.39957 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.39957 of 2025
and
W.M.P. No.44887 of 2025
1.A.A.Kala
2.A.A.Varalakshmi
3.A.A.Kumaran
4.A.A.Sastha Prabhu
5.A.A.Dayasankar
6.K.Devi
7.S.Sathya Priya
8.Minor A.S.Ramyasri
Rep. By mother and natural guardian
S.Sathya Priya .. Petitioners
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai Zone, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The District Registrar,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
5.The Sub Registrar,
Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 078.
6.K.Muthu .. Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
W.P.No.39957 of 2025
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records
relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.2621/Aa1/2021 dated 09.09.2022 and to quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Munuswamy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The fourth respondent herein filed an application under
Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 seeking cancellation of
certain registered conveyances and for the effacement of entries
relating thereto from the Register of encumbrances. The said
request was rejected by order dated 15.04.2021. The said order
was carried in appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration and such appeal was allowed partly by order dated
09.09.2022. The appellate order is under challenge in this writ
petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to
the order dated 15.04.2021 and pointed out that the subject thereof
itself indicates that the petitioner's request was for cancellation of
the documents mentioned therein. In effect, he contends that the
application was in the nature of an application under Section 77-A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
of the Registration Act, 1908. On account of Section 77-A being held
as unconstitutional in M.Kathirvel and others vs. Inspector General
of Registration and Others (2024 (4) CTC 769) (Kathirvel), learned
counsel submits that the appellate order cannot be sustained. By
referring to the impugned appellate order, learned counsel submits
that a finding has been recorded that the fourth respondent is the
owner of ¼th share in the properties forming the subject of the
documents referred to therein. By referring to the operative part of
the order, he points out that it is recorded therein that Document
No.2621 of 2021 dated 09.09.2022 was executed by a person who
does not have a right to do so and that further documents should
not be registered on the basis of the said document. Learned
counsel contends that these directions are without authority and are
liable to be interfered with.
3. In response, learned counsel for the sixth respondent, first
referred to the application made by the sixth respondent. He
submits that the application was made under Section 68(2) of the
Registration Act and not under Section 77-A. By referring to Section
68(2) read with Rule 116(a), learned counsel submits that it
empowers the Registrar to make a note and that such power may
be exercised notwithstanding Section 77-A being struck down. By
referring to the operative part of the appellate order, learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
counsel submits that cancellation has not been directed. He also
relies upon the judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S.Nos.379
and 380 of 2006 to contend that it was concluded therein that the
predecessors in interest of the petitioner do not have any title over
the suit property. After pointing out that such finding was not
interfered with even by the Court in second appeal, learned counsel
submits that the conclusion in the operative part does not contain
any infirmity. Indeed, he submits that it is fully within the powers of
the Registrar under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that Section
77-A was introduced on 16.08.2022 and that the order of the
District Registrar was issued prior thereto. Therefore, he submits
that the said order was issued under Section 68(2) read with
circular dated 08.11.2017. By referring to paragraph No.178 of
Kathirvel, learned Special Government Pleader submits that circular
dated 08.11.2017 was also held to be unconstitutional by the
Division Bench.
5. The relevant findings in the impugned appellate order are
as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
6. The first of the above findings is a finding recorded in
respect of title to the relevant property. Such finding is clearly
beyond the authority of the appellate authority. The second finding
is to the effect that Document No.2621 of 2021 dated 09.09.2022
was executed by a person who does not have the right to execute
the same. It further records that no registration of documents
should be made on the basis of this document. As pointed out by
learned special Government Pleader Section 77-A was not in force
when the sixth respondent submitted the application seeking
cancellation. The sixth respondent, undoubtedly, requested for
cancellation albeit under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act. While
holding that Section 77-A is unconstitutional, the Division Bench of
this Court also examined Section 68(2) and circular dated
08.11.2017. Paragraph No.178 of the judgment is as under:
178.Section 68[2] of Registration Act was
interpreted to confer power on the District Registrar
to cancel the document for irregularities in
registration. As this Court has already held that
Section 77-A of the Act is unconstitutional as it is
contrary to the object of the Act, any circular or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
order or direction enabling the District Registrar or
Registering Officer to cancel registration or
invalidating any transaction is unconstitutional and
hence, the impugned circular dated 08.11.2017 is
declared as unconstitutional. The writ petition stands
allowed.
7. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the said
order is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of on these
terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
06.01.2026
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai Zone, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
3.The District Registrar,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
4.The Sub Registrar,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
5.The Sub Registrar,
Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 078.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
mmi
06.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:22 pm )
