W.P.(MD).No.3218 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD).No.3218 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).No.2246 of 2025 R.N.Velmurugan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Rajakambeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai. 2.The District Registrar Madurai (North), (In the Cadre of Assistant Inspector General of Registration), Registration Department, Rajakambeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai. 3.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Alanganallur, Madurai District. 4.Annalakshmi .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.3218 of 2025 order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.4572/A3/2022, dated 06.04.2023, quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate For R-4 : Mr.G.Aravinthan for M/s.Aran Legal Consultancy ORDER The petitioner challenges the order passed by the second respondent in Proceedings No.4572/A3/2022, dated 06.04.2023. 2. The impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of a petition filed by the fourth respondent, alleging that the partition deed executed between the petitioner and his co-sharers is a fraudulent one. The second respondent invoked Section 77A of the Registration Act and declared the partition deed as fraudulent and inoperative. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The appeal is said to be pending. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.3218 of 2025 3. In the meantime, a Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others, 2024 (4) CTC 769, declared the very provision under Section 77A to be unconstitutional. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the order passed by the second respondent. 4. When the matter came up for admission, as the petition before the second respondent had been filed by the fourth respondent and since if any order is passed in this Writ Petition, it will affect the right of the fourth respondent, I directed the petitioner to take notice on the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent has been served and Mr.G.Aravinthan has entered appearance on her behalf. 5. Heard Mr.M.Saravanan for the petitioner, Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.G.Aravinthan for the fourth respondent. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel's case has declared Section 77A to be unconstitutional. The declaration of unconstitutionality relates back to the date on which the amendment was inserted into the Act. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.3218 of 2025 Therefore, any order passed pursuant to Section 77A, which has been declared as unconstitutional, should also fall to the ground. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds and the same stands allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Needless to add, it is open to the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent to initiate such proceedings, as they may be advised, before the jurisdictional Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 19.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm To 1.The District Registrar(Administration), Office of the District Registrar, Tirunelveli. 2.The Sub Registrar, Panagudi, Tirunelveli District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.3218 of 2025 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J. Lm W.P.(MD).No.3218 of 2025 19.02.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis