K.Kaliaperumal v. Deputy Inspector General Of Reg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN K.Kaliaperumal ... Petitioner

Versus

1. Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Cuddalore Region, Cuddalore.

2. The District Registrar (Administration) Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.

3. Kolanji ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to implement the order of the 1st respondent in No.2568/A/2018 dated 5.10.2018 by conducting enquiry and passing order on the representation of the petitioner dated 28.09.2018, as per the Registration Act, within a stipulated time fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. J.Antony Jesus For Respondents : Mr. P.Harish, Government Advocate (for R1 & R2) : Mr. M.Guruprasad, for Mr. C.Arun Kumar (for R3)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to implement the order of the first respondent in No.2568/A/2018 dated 05.10.2018 by conducting an enquiry and passing orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 28.09.2018, in accordance with the Registration Act, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

3.

On perusal of the representation dated 28.09.2018 submitted by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of the third respondent on 20.08.1996 vide Doc.No.945 /1996 for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,000/-. The grievance expressed in the representation is that the said sale consideration was not paid by the third respondent till date, however, the sale deed had been executed in his favour. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a declaration that the said registration to be treated as void. 4.

It is pertinent to note that the petitioner submitted his

representation only in the year 2018, questioning a transaction which took place as early as in the year 1996 for the sale deed executed in favour of the third respondent. That apart, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that a complaint was lodged at the relevant time with regard to the non-payment of consideration. No prudent person would ordinarily execute a sale deed without receiving the sale consideration. In such circumstances, the representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. 5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 04.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No klt G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

klt To

1. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Cuddalore Region, Cuddalore.

2. The District Registrar (Administration) Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.

04.09.2025