M.Vincent v. The Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR M.Vincent ..Appellant Vs

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

2. The District Registrar, Chennai South, No.537, Fenpet, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

3. The Sub Registrar, Alandur Sub Registrar, Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.

4. Mangalakshmi

5. S.Sreemathi

6. Sumathi

7. Sivagami

8. R.Raghu

9. R.Uma Maheshwari

10.Aleem 11.The Proprietor, MMKK Builders, Thillai Ganga Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai - 600 061.

..Respondents PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to call for records relating to the order dated 04.12.2025 in W.P.No.46578 of 2025 on the file of this Hon'ble High Court and set aside the same and allow the writ appeal. For Appellant :

Mr.D.Ashokkumar For Respondents :

Ms.K.Aswini Devi Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This intra-Court Appeal has been directed against the order dated 04.12.2025 made in W.P.No.46578 of 2025.

2. The present appellant was the writ petitioner, who filed the said writ petition seeking for writ of certiorarified mandamus challenging the release deed dated 28.04.2010 bearing Document No.1332/2010 and settlement deed dated 20.02.2024 bearing Document No.812/2024.

3. Before the writ Court, the disputed questions of fact had arisen where the respondents 4 to 7 have released their 4/5th share in the property by including false recitals in release deed dated 28.04.2010 and it is the further case of the appellant / petitioner that, his father was an Ex-service man and his grandfather's property has been inherited by his father.

4. When that being the position, who is the real owner of the property in question, how his father has inherited the property from whom how the property devolved to and in favour of him, who are all the other respondents, how the release deed has been executed and registered, whether any false recitals have been made in the release deed dated 28.04.2010, these are all completely factual matrix which have to be gone into and decided only by the civil Court by letting evidence by both the parties in a competent civil suit.

5. Therefore, all these disputed questions of facts since cannot be decided by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition by driving the writ petitioner to go before the civil Court through the impugned order dated 04.12.2025.

6. We are in complete agreement with the said view taken by the writ Court, therefore, the order impugned passed by the writ Court is to be sustained

as we find no reason to interfere with the same, as a result of which, the Writ Appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(R.S.K., J.) (N.S., J.) 02-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vji To

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

2. The District Registrar, Chennai South, No.537, Fenpet, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

3. The Sub Registrar, Alandur Sub Registrar, Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

vji 02-04-2026