WP(MD) No. 22864 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN WP(MD) No. 22864 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17929 of 2025 C.Ramakrishnan S/o.Chellaiah Nadar, No.117, West Street, Velayuthapuram, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar Office, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. 2. Pankaj Garg, Managing Director, M/S.MECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., Paranthaman Road, Siliguri, West Bengal. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARI, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the 1st Respondent in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.296/2025, dated 18.07.2025 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 22864 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Parthiban Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.J.Esakkimuthu for R2 ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request for cancellation of the entry in the Encumbrance Certificate relating to the properties comprised in S.Nos.219/1, 220, 246/1A, 246/1B, 246/3, 249/3 and 206, standing registered in the name of the second respondent, namely, M/s.MECH Industries Private Limited, came to be rejected. 2. The impugned order proceeds on the premise that the registering authority has no power to cancel a registered document unilaterally. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 22864 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 3. The impugned order further records that, if the vendor who executed the Sale Deed in favour of the purchaser comes forward and executes and presents a Deed of Cancellation, the registration standing in the name of the second respondent can be cancelled. Alternatively, it was observed that the parties could work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it has been stated as follows: ‘’4. I respectfully submit that after we had purchased the properties in this manner and the true owners filed a complaint against our company at the Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi. After that we prompting an investigation into the matter and that we became aware of the fact that our company had not purchased the properties from the true owners. 5. I respectfully submit that upon becoming aware of the aforementioned details, our company summoned the vendors to cancel the sale deeds executed in our favor regarding the property in Avalnatham village. However, as the vendors failed to provide adequate cooperation, our company was unable to effect the cancellation of the said documents through the formal registration process. Therefore, in order to avoid unnecessary disputes, our company submitted a letter to the Sub-Registrar of Kovilpatti on October 5, 2007, requesting the issuance of an appropriate order to cancel the registrations pertaining to the lands registered in our company's name in Avalnatham Village, Kovilpatti Taluk.’’ 5. The petitioner is also represented by learned counsel before this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 22864 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 6. A reading of the averments contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit makes it apparent that the Sale Deed was allegedly executed fraudulently by the executor in favour of the second respondent. It is also evident from the said averments that the second respondent has distanced itself from any claim of ownership or rights over the subject properties and that the executor has not come forward to execute and present a Deed of Cancellation. 7. In view of the above circumstances, and taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Sasikala v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and another, 2022 (5) CTC 257, wherein it has been held that this Court is vested with the power to order cancellation of a registered document in appropriate circumstances, this Court is inclined to order cancellation of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the second respondent by the vendor, namely, Gopalasamy. 8. The vendor has failed to come forward to execute a deed of cancellation. The second respondent has, in any event, disclaimed any right or interest over the subject properties. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Sale Deed executed in favour of the second respondent is liable to be cancelled. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 22864 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a consequential direction to the first respondent to cancel the Sale Deed executed in favour of the second respondent and to make necessary and appropriate entries in the Encumbrance Certificate reflecting such cancellation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No smn2 To The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar Office, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 22864 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2 WP(MD) No. 22864 of 2025 13-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis