W.P.No.5513 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.5513 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.6077 of 2025 I.Radha .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registrations, Inspector General of Registrations Office, Chennai – 600 028. 2.The District Registrar (Admin.), Tindivanam, Villupuram District, Tamilnadu – 604 001. 3.The Sub-Registrar, Vanur Sub-Registrar's Office, Tamilnadu – 605 109. 4.K.Asokan .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the District Registrar (Administration), Tindivanam, Tamil Nadu, the 2nd respondent herein vide his proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.207/Aa1/2021 dated 16.05.2022, and quash the same. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5513 of 2025 For petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 16.05.2022 under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. 3.The 4th respondent has been served with notice and the name of the 4th respondent has also been printed in the cause list. There is no representation either in person or through counsel. 4.The case of the petitioner is that he entered into negotiation with certain individuals for the purchase of the property. The subject property pertains to Plot Nos.57 & 58 measuring to an extent of 2400 sq.ft. A registered sale deed dated 05.09.2000 was executed and by virtue of the same, the plots were sold in favour of the petitioner. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5513 of 2025 5.A complaint was given by one Krishnamoorthy claiming right over the subject property. The 2nd respondent made an enquiry of this complaint under Section 68(2) of the Act. Through the proceedings dated 16.05.2022, the 2nd respondent held as follows: “14/,e;epiyapy; bghJ mjpfhu Kftu; mnrhfd; mtu;fs; bgUkhs; gps;isf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l Vf;fu; 1/42 y; mtupd; mDkjpapd;wp jpUr;rpw;wk;gyk; fpuhkk; g[";ir ru;nt vz;/134-3?7/46 y; 2/08y; ,e;jpuhefu; vd kidg;gpupt[ Vw;gLj;jp. Mjpy; ,e;j Mtzj;jpd;go kid vz;/14?1200 rJuo kida[k;. Mtz vz;/6616-2007 tpw;gid Mtzj;jpy; jpUr;rpw;wk;gyk; fpuhkk; ru;nt vz;/134-3?7/46y; kid vz/35?1200 rJuo kida[k;. Mtz vz;/7872-2007 tpw;gid Mtzj;jpy; jpUr;rpw;wk;gyk; fpuhkk; ru;nt vz;/134-3?7/46y; kid vz;/32.33 ? 2400 rJuo kida[k;. Mtz vz;/16-2008 tpw;gid Mtzj;jpy; jpUr;rpw;wk;gyk; fpuhkk; ru;nt vz;/134-3?7/46y; kid vz;/31?f;F 843/3-4 rJuo kida[k; Kftu; Xjhtpy; mnrhfd; vd;gtuhy; tpw;gid bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go tpw;gid Mtzj;jpy; bghJ mjpfhu Kftu; mnrhfDf;F uhn$!;tup mk;khs; mspj;j bghJ mjpfhu Mtzk; bry;yf;ToaJ MFk;/ cupa epymsitahsu; K:yk; uhn$!;tupf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 0/66 brz;L epyk; mse;J mjpy; cs;s kidfs; tpw;gid bra;jpUe;jhy;. me;j Mtz';fs; bry;yj;jf;fjhFk;/ bgUkhs; 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5513 of 2025 gps;isf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l nkw;go fpuhkk; ru;nt vz;/134-3?7/46y; Vf;fu; 1/42 brz;L epyj;jpy; nkw;go tpw;gid Mtz';fs; tUkhdhy;. Mit bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd mwptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ kPz;Lk; Mtzk; 48-2000 bghJ mjpfhu Mtzk; Mtz vz;/236-2004d;go uj;J bra;jjhy;. Kftu; vd;w epiyia mnrhfd; ,Hf;fpwhu;/ thD}u; rhu;gjpthsu; cupa Mtz';fspd; efy;fspd; moapy; cupa Fwpg;g[ nru;f;f mwptpf;fg;gLfpwhu;/” 6.The above proceedings of the 2nd respondent has been put to challenge in the present writ petition. 7.The issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 68(2) of the Act cannot result in the cancellation of the registered document and for this purpose, the learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment in M.Kathirvel Vs. Inspector General of Registration reported in [(2024) 4 CTC 769]. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: “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 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5513 of 2025 unconstitutional as it is contrary to the object of the Act, any circular or 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.” 8.In the light of the above judgment of the Division Bench, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable and hence, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 16.05.2022 is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the parties will have to adjudicate only before the competent Civil Court and proceed further in accordance with law. The order passed in the present writ petition shall be taken note of and the previous entry that has been made pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 16.05.2022 shall be canceled. 9.In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 11.03.2025 krk 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5513 of 2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. krk To 1.The Inspector General of Registrations, Inspector General of Registrations Office, Chennai – 600 028. 2.The District Registrar (Admin.), Tindivanam, Villupuram District, Tamilnadu – 604 001. 3.The Sub-Registrar, Vanur Sub-Registrar's Office, Tamilnadu – 605 109. W.P.No.5513 of 2025 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5513 of 2025 11.03.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis