K.Venkatesan v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR K.Venkatesan .. Appellant Vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration No.100 Santhome High Road Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028 2.The District Registrar Rangampalayam Erode, Erode District 3.P.R.Thangamuthu 4.P.Venkatachalam 5.R.Shanthi .. Respondents *** PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P. No.14265 of 2024 dated 07.06.2024.
***
For Appellant : Ms.Sahitya for Mr.M.Elango For Respondents : Mr.P.Harish, Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.J.Titus Enock for R3 Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy for R4 & R5
JUDGMENT
(made by N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the writ court dated 07.06.2024 passed in W.P. No.14265 of 2024, the writ petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal.
2. According to the appellant, he preferred a complaint before the second respondent on 01.08.2023 stating that the third respondent/power agent has executed a sale deed on 11.06.2009, which was registered as Document No.2234 of 2009. A representation was given by the appellant on 02.08.2023 contending that the third respondent being the power agent of the appellant's mother, has not passed on the sale consideration to appellant's mother and therefore, he sought to cancel the sale deed dated 11.06.2009.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner reiterated the facts. It is to be noted that the sale deed was registered as Document
No.2234 of 2009 dated 11.06.2009 by the third respondent and the representation given by the appellant was dated 01.08.2023.
4. The writ court, dismissed the writ petition on the following ground vide its order dated 07.06.2024. The penultimate paragraph of the said order is extracted hereunder:
"At the outset, the very writ petition and the power of the Registrar is misconceived. Even assuming if the sale consideration has not been paid as alleged by the petitioner, that cannot be a ground to annul the very transaction itself. The remedy of the vendor lies elsewhere to recover the unpaid sale consideration and not to seek for cancellation of the document, that too, after a period of 14 years of its execution."
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the power is not conferred on the Registrar to cancel the sale deed on the ground of nonpayment of sale consideration by the Power of Attorney of appellant's mother. It is not a ground to annul the execution of the sale deed and that the appellant cannot seek such a relief in writ proceedings. There is a lapse of 14 years from the date of execution of the sale deed. Moreover, the second respondent vide his proceedings rejected the appellant's request on the ground that the recitals in
the sale deed show that the property involved in the sale deed was sold by the third respondent only in the capacity of an owner and not as power agent of appellant's mother. Moreover, the remedies available before the writ court and the power of the Registrar is misconceived by the appellant and the appellant's remedy lies elsewhere. In such view of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge dated 07.06.2024 passed in W.P. No.14265 of 2024 and we find no reason to interfere with the same.
6. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
[A.S.M., J] [N.S., J] Asr 29.07.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order To 1.The Inspector General of Registration No.100 Santhome High Road Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028 2.The District Registrar Rangampalayam Erode, Erode District 3.The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J.
and N.SENTHILKUMAR.,J.
Asr 29.07.2025