Easwarlal Or v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY O.R.Easwarlal

...Petitioner

vs.

1. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Thirumogur Main Road, TNAU Nagar, Rajagambeeram, Y. Othakkadai, Madurai - 625 107.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Teppakulam Sub-Registrar Office, Thirumogur Main Road, TNAU Nagar, Rajagambeeram, Y. Othakkadai, Madurai - 625 107.

3. Ganeshraja S

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to enquire into the fraudulent sale deed dated 31.03.1967 through which the 3rd respondent is claiming ownership as per the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2025 in accordance with Section 68 of the Registration Act 1908 and file a report within time fixed by this Court.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to enquire into the fraudulent sale deed dated 31.03.1967 through which the 3rd respondent is claiming ownership as per the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2025 in accordance with Section 68 of the Registration Act 1908 and file a report.

2. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed as against the third respondent, notice to him is dispensed with.

3. By consent on either sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2025 to enquire into the fraudulent sale deed dated 31.03.1967 is yet to be considered. Hence, the Writ Petition. 2/5

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that, in the instant case, since the petitioner, who is the affected party, has knowledge of the fraudulent sale deed dated 31.03.1967 and the offence committed by the third parties, he can very well lodge a complaint before the Police Authorities to initiate criminal action and also take steps to set aside the sale deed.

6. Upon hearing either sides, I find force in the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader. The petitioner claims that the fraudulent sale deed was executed in the year 1967 by fabrication of records. Once, the petitioner gains knowledge of the fabrication of records, and if the limitation permits, he can very well approach the Police Authorities for initiating criminal action and also approach the Civil Court to declare the sale deed as null and void. Such being the case, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 27.01.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi 3/5

To

1. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Thirumogur Main Road, Tnau Nagar, Rajagambeeram, Y. Othakkadai, Madurai - 625 107.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Teppakulam Sub-Registrar Office, Thirumogur Main Road, Tnau Nagar, Rajagambeeram, Y. Othakkadai, Madurai - 625 107.

4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

mbi 27.01.2026 5/5