← Library
Madras High CourtWP/549/2026dismissed

G.Ravichanthiran v. The District Registrar

2026-01-27Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY G.Ravichanthiran .. Petitioner vs 1.The District Registrar, District Registration Department, Salem District - 636 001.

2.The Sub Registrar, Omalur Sub Registration Office, Salem District - 636 455.

3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayampatti Sub Registration Office, Salem District - 636 351.

4.L.Sakthi @ Sathya 5.P.Gopal 6.G.Lakshmanan .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 19.12.2025 by conducting an enquiry on the fraudulent document dated 03.01.2023 registered as Document No.89/2023 by the second respondent and cancel the same, consequently to remove the entry made in the register and the encumbrance certificate. 1/4

For Petitioner :

Dr.S.Lingesh For Respondents :

Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

ORDER

The petitioner asserts that he had availed a loan from the sixth respondent and that as security in respect thereof, he executed a conveyance deed in favour of the sixth respondent on 26.09.2003. According to the petitioner, though the conveyance was executed as security for loan, the sixth respondent refused to cancel the document. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks an enquiry and the consequent cancellation of document dated 03.01.2023 bearing Document No.89 of 2023.

2. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. He submits that the petitioner should lodge a police complaint if he intends to complain about the fraudulent life certificate.

3. The registering officer does not have the power to cancel the registered instrument. From the averments in the affidavit in support of this writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner asserts that he executed a conveyance in favour of the sixth respondent 2/4

solely as security for a loan. The petitioner has also stated that the sixth respondent refused to cancel the document. Inference flows from the above that there are disputed questions of fact which cannot be conveniently or appropriately addressed in summary proceedings. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.

4. For reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs by leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for relief or to lodge a police complaint, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. 27.01.2026 Index:Yes/No mmi To 1.The District Registrar, District Registration Department, Salem District - 636 001.

2.The Sub Registrar, Omalur Sub Registration Office, Salem District - 636 455.

3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayampatti Sub Registration Office, Salem District - 636 351.

3/4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi 27.01.2026 4/4