Vasantha v. The District Registrar (Administration)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 02/02/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP(MD)No.2316 of 2026 Vasantha ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar (Administration), Dindigul Registration District, Dindigul.

2. The Sub Registrar, Athoor Sub Registrar Office, Athoor, Dindigul District.

3. Selvakani

4. Sundaramuthu

5. Murugesan ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to conduct enquiry and take necessary action as per Sections 82 and 83 of Registration Act 1/6

- 1908 relating to execution of registered settlement deed bearing document No.441 of 2019 dated 28.03.2019 based on petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to conduct enquiry and take necessary action as per Sections 82 and 83 of Registration Act - 1908 relating to execution of registered settlement deed bearing document No.441 of 2019 dated 28.03.2019 based on petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2025.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in respect of the petitioner's properties and other properties, one Gothandaraman, who is his father's brother's son, executed a 2/6

forged settlement deed dated 28.03.20189 in favour of his wife including the petitioner's properties. In this regard, the petitioner made an application before the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, who passed an order stating that the legal heirship certificate of Gothandaraman's father is forged one. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.11.2025 to the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act relating to execution of forged settlement deed dated 28.03.2019 and the same is pending. Hence, this writ petition. 3.

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that since the petitioner had knowledge about the commission of offence, it is for the petitioner to file a criminal complaint to the police. Without doing so, she cannot ask for the Sub Registrar to conduct an enquiry that will ultimately be a vexatious exercise. Even if the police refused to receive the petitioner's complaint, she can work out her remedy before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. Thus, he would pray 3/6

for dismissal of the writ petition.

4.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5.

As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, since the commission of offence on the part of the respondents 3 to 5 had come to the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have preferred a complaint to the police to initiate criminal action for the execution of the fraudulent settlement deed, whereas the petitioner has sought to initiate criminal proceedings through the registering authorities which is unnecessary and time consuming process. Further, with regard to claiming damages or to declare the settlement deed as null and void, the petitioner can approach the Civil Court.

6.

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to 4/6

the petitioner either to lodge a criminal complaint to the police or to approach the compentent Civil Court. No costs. 02.02.2026 Index : Yes / No bala To

1. The District Registrar (Administration), Dindigul Registration District, Dindigul.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

bala

2. The Sub Registrar, Athoor Sub Registrar Office, Athoor, Dindigul District.

ORDER MADE IN WP(MD)No.2316 of 2026 DATED : 02.02.2026 6/6