T.Ganesan v. The Joint Sub Registrar 2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 02.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY T.Ganesan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Joint Sub Registrar 2, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2. A.K. Habib Muhammed

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Na.Ka. No.842/2025 dated 22.12.2025 and Quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent herein to update the time barred status of the document in Doc. No. 4741/2009 in the encumbrance certificate with respect to S.No.832/6 and 832/1 belong to the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstance of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Venkatesan For R1 :Mr.R.Parthiban Government Advocate For R2 : No Appearance

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2025.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner constituted one A.K.Mohamed Maitheen as the power of attorney agent vide Doc.No.473/2009 dated 18.05.2009. Yet another Power of Attorney dated 25.08.2009 was also registered as Doc.No.579/2009.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the said A.K.Mohamed Maitheen misused his powers and entered into a sale agreement with his own brother which was also registered as Doc.No.4741/2009. Upon coming to know of the same, the petitioner

cancelled the aforesaid power of attorney and had duly intimated the power of attorney about the cancellation of the power deeds. Thereafter, no steps were also taken by the power of attorney, agent or the agreement holder. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to make an entry into the encumbrance that the sale agreement can no longer be in force and the period mentioned in the sale agreement has also since expired. The same is refused by the impugned order and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. He would further submit that even though notice was served on the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has not chosen to appear before this court and contest the writ petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent would submit that no such entry can be made by the Sub Registrar.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

7. If according to the petitioner, he has cancelled the power of attorney and if he wants to deal with the property, he is very much free to deal with the same. The Sub Registrar cannot adjudicate on the sale agreement or its limitation, etc., and cannot make any entries with reference thereto in the encumbrance deed and accordingly the impugned order has rightly been passed. If the petitioner contends that the sale agreement is no longer binding on him and he can deal with the property, he will be free to do so and present any documents claiming title to the property.

8. With the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner, the writ petition disposed of.

02.06.2026 rgm

To The Joint Sub Registrar 2, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

rgm 02.06.2026