Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu v. The Inspector General Of Registration

2025:MHC:500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.02.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN Writ Appeal No.431 of 2025 Mrs.Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu .. Appellant 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road Chennai-600 028 2.The District Registrar (Admin) Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

3.The Sub-Registrar Cheyyur Chengalpet District 4.S.Mohamed Aslam 5.A.Abdul Hadi 6.A.M.Ahamed Faizal .. Respondents Prayer : APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.34965 of 2024 on the file of this Court and consequently allow the Writ Petition. 1/5

For Appellant :

Mr.M.Nandhakumar for Mr.Eswar For Respondents :

Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate (for R1 to R3)

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J) The present writ appeal challenges an order passed in WP.No.34965 of 2024, wherein the prayer was for a mandamus directing the District Registrar (Admin), Chengalpattu District to conduct enquiry on the complaint filed by the petitioner on 24.01.2024. 2.The content of the complaint relates to alleged fraudulent registration of a sale deed bearing Document No.488 of 2021 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Cheyyur(R3 in writ petition) (document in question). The document in question has been executed qua R4, R5 and R6, who have been arrayed as respondents to the writ petition. 3.The writ Court has considered the position that the writ petitioner is in no way connected to the execution of the document in question and as admittedly that document has been executed only by the private respondents inter se themselves.

4.The case of the appellant is that fraud has been perpetrated in the formation of lay out, particularly in relation to the document in question. 2/5

5.We are in agreement with the order of the writ Court to the effect that the fraud, if at all, does not concern the writ petitioner in any way. We have also ascertained specifically from the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether he is in any way connected to the registration of the document in question to which learned counsel has categorically confirmed that he is not in any way so connected. 6.In such circumstances, we see nothing untoward in the order of the writ Court holding that the appellant is in no way aggrieved by the execution of the subject document. The writ petition is misconceived, and no case has been made out for issuance of mandamus. This writ appeal is hence dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.S.M., J] [C.K., J] 19.02.2025 Index:Yes Speaking order To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.

2.The District Registrar (Admin) Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

3/5

3.The Sub-Registrar, Cheyyur, Chengalpet District.

4/5

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

and C. KUMARAPPAN.,J Writ Appeal No.431 of 2025 19.02.2025 5/5