P.Varalaxmi v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and WMP Nos.19462, 19463 and 22136 of 2024
1. P.Varalaxmi W/o.Late.P.V.Seshadri Gupta,
2. P.Hemalatha W/o.Late.P.Subramaniam,
3. P.V.Vignesh Kumar D/o.Late.P.Subramaniam,
4. P.V.Varalakshmi D/o.Late.P.Subramaniam, ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Inspector General Of Registration No.100,Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004
2. The District Registrar, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.
3. The Sub Registrar Guduvancheri, Chengalpattu District ..Respondent(s) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus direction the respondents to consider petitioner representation dated 17.5.2024 given by the petitioners by conducting an
enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Registration Act 1908 within a stipulated time in accordance with law For Petitioner(s):
Mr. C.Umashankar For Respondent(s):
Mrs.K. Aswini Devi, AGP
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 17.05.2024.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the property measuring an extent of about 2600 sq.ft. in Plot NO.5, R.S.No.524/2, Nandhivaram Village, Bhavanipuram Extension, Vandalur Taluk was originally purchased by one P.V.Seshadri Gupta, the husband of the first petitioner and grandfather of the petitioners 2 to 4, by way of a registered sale deed dated 14.07.1964 in Document No.2019 of 1964 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Tambaram. Thereafter, a partition was effected between him and his sons on 20.12.1976 under Document No.4669 of 1976. By virtue of the said partition, the property fell to the share of P.Subramanian,, father of the petitioners 2 to 4, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the demise of the said
P.Subramaniam on 24.08.2017, the petitioners, being his legal heirs, became the owners of the said property.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that when they proposed to put up construction in the said property, they came to know that one Magesh Gupta, claiming himself to be the son of P.V.Seshadri Gupta, had executed a General Power of Attorney dated 11.01.2021 registered as Document No.336 of 2021 in favour of one Krishnamoorthy. Subsequently, the said Krishnamoorthy executed a mortgage deed dated 12.01.2021, registered as Document No.413 of 2021, in favour of one Deenadayalan, both registered on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Guduvanchery.
4. According to the petitioners, the persons mentioined in the said documents and the addresses furnished therein are also fictitious and the documents have been fabricated. Hence, on 17.05.2024, the petitioners sent a detailed representation to the respondents requesting them to take appropriate action and cancel the said documents. However, since no action has been taken on the said representation, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the registering authority has no power to cancel a registered document or take action against the persons, who have allegedly executed the documents by committing forgery.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records carefully.
7. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the registering authority may conduct an enquiry under Section 83 of the Registration Act, and if any forgery or fraud is found, they can very well lodge a complaint before the police for initiating action against the persons concerned in accordance with law. However, the registering authority has no power to cancel a registered document.
8. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that it is open to the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. If the petitioners are of the view that the documents have been created by committing
forgery, it is always open to them to lodge a complaint before the police or to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent Civil Court.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 04-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MRP To
1. The Inspector General Of Registration No.100,Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004
2. The District Registrar Chengalpattu District
3. The Sub Registrar Guduvancheri, Chengalpattu District
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
MRP W.P. No. 17704 of 2024 04-03-2026