Madras High CourtWP(MD)/14513/2023dismissed

Ramachandran v. The Inspector General Of Registration

2024-09-24Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 24/09/2024

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR and WMP(MD) Nos.12309 of 2023 Ramachandran ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Combined Registration Office Campus, Rajakambeeram, Y. Othakadai, Madurai 625 107.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4. The District Registrar, Registration Office, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

5. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thiruchuzhi, Virudhunagar District.

1/5

6. Thayammal

7. Mottaiyan ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order of Na.Ka.No.624/AA1/2023 dated 10.04.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to dispose the petitioners appeal dated 26.09.2022, which was filed against the 4th respondent order of Na.Ka.No.73/2022 dated 24.03.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Murugappan, For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan for R1 to R5 Additional Government Pleader No appearance for other

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 3rd respondent and to direct the 3rd respondent to dispose the petitioner's appeal dated 26.09.2022, which was filed against the 4th respondent order of Na.Ka.No.73/2022 dated 24.03.2022. 2/5

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is the ancestral property of the petitioner and his brothers. At the time the petitioner and his brothers were minor, a settlement/gift deed has been executed by their grandmother, which was subsequently cancelled by her and the properties have been sold without obtaining any orders from the Court. In order to cancel the same, the petitioner preferred a petition before the 4th respondent, which was rejected, against which, an appeal has been preferred. However, since the said appeal has been rejected, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

4. At the outset, this Court is of the view that as per the law laid down in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P.[ 2016 10 SCC 767] and G. Rajasulochana v Inspector General made in W.P 29706 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024, fraudulent transaction cannot be gone into by the authorities and cancel the document, which has to be established in the manner known to law before the civil Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is 3/5

dismissed. It is for the parties to work out their remedy before the civil court. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

24.09.2024 RR TO