Mr.B.Mahendran v. The Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.10.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR W.P No.29853 of 2024 and WMP.No.32550 of 2024 B.Mahendran

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2. The District Registrar, District Registrar Office (Chennai Central), 268, Bharathy Salai, Express Estate, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 005

3. The Sub Registrar, Puraisaiwakkam Sub Registrar Office, No.6/13, Potious Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

4. B.Poompavai

5. B.Babu

6. B.Prem Kumar 7.N.Eswari ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 10.09.2024 to conduct a fair enquiry. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Manimaran For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the third respondent to consider his representation dated 10.09.2024.

2. By consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 3, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father purchased the property in the name of the petitioner's mother B.Poompavai. The petitioner's father died on 21.08.2016. Now, taking advantage of the mental condition of the petitioner's mother, the petitioner's siblings are attempting to execute a sale deed in their favour. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.09.2024 before the third respondent, not to entertain any documents presented in the name of the petitioner's mother for registration. 2/4

4. A perusal of the typed set of papers would establish that the representation of the petitioner dated 10.09.2024 was rejected by the third respondent on 10.09.2024 itself, by his proceedings No.Na.Ka.En.296/2024. Therefore, the prayer sought by the petitioner in this writ petition has become infructuous.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the third respondent is a non-speaking order .

6. It is seen that the writ petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the third respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the third respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Since the representation was already considered and orders passed, the prayer in this writ petition has become infructuous and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order 3/4

av S. SOUNTHAR, J.

av To

1. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2. The District Registrar, District Registrar Office (Chennai Central), 268, Bharathy Salai, Express Estate, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 005

3. The Sub Registrar, Puraisaiwakkam Sub Registrar Office, No.6/13, Potious Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

W.P No.29853 of 2024 04.10.2024 4/4