M.Pandiyan @Selvapandiyan v. The Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.No.11381 of 2025 M.Pandiyan @ Selvapandiyan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The District Registrar, O/o. the District Registrar, Tirupathur and District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ambur, Tirupathur District.

4.The District Collector, Tirupathur District, Tirupathur.

5.The Tahsildar, Ambur Taluk, Tirupathur District.

6.Muniammal 1/5

7.S.Jayalakshmi 8.V.Dilipkumar .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare that the Sale Deed in Document No.5953 of 2007 dated 07.12.2007 on the file of the 3rd respondent office, executed by the respondents 6 and 7 in favour of the 8th respondent in regard to the properties to an extent of 49 cents in Survey No.212/8, Re Survey No.115/2 and to an extent of 2 acres 37 cents in Survey No.212/11, Re Survey No.115/3 totally to an extent of 2 acres 86 cents of Solur Village, Ambur Taluk, Tirupathur District is null and void, fraudulent, illegal and invalid document. For Petitioner :

Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For RR 1 to 5 :

Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of declaration to declare the sale deed dated 07.12.2007 registered as document No.5953 of 2007 on the file of the 3rd respondent executed by the respondents 6 & 7 in favour of the 8th respondent, as null and void and illegal.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 2/5

Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5. 3.This Court on carefully considering the materials placed before this Court and on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, finds that there is a dispute regarding the right and title between the petitioner and the respondents 6 & 7. Even though the petitioner claims that the respondents 6 & 7 do not have any right over the property and they had executed fraudulent sale deed in favour of the eighth respondent, that is an issue which cannot be gone into in a writ petition, since it involves disputed question of facts. This issue has to be necessarily agitated only before the competent Civil Court. Except giving this clarity, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition. 4.In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 28.03.2025 krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No : Yes / No 3/5

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

krk To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The District Registrar, O/o. the District Registrar, Tirupathur and District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ambur, Tirupathur District. 4.The District Collector, Tirupathur District, Tirupathur.

5.The Tahsildar, Ambur Taluk, Tirupathur District.

28.03.2025 4/5

5/5