K.Abinaya v. The Inspector General Of Registration

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 15.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.12084 of 2026 K.Abinaya ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registration, O/o. Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar (Admin), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3. The Sub Registrar, Kottaram, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

4. Indra

5. Vinunaya

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other orders, or directions, more in the form writ, calling for the records, pertaining to the impugned order, passed by this 2nd respondent, the District Registrar, Kanyakumari District, vide letter Na.Ka.No.885/AA3/2025-26, dated 27.04.2026 and quash the same as not valid, and pass a direction to these 2nd and 3rd respondents, to cancel the registration of the settlement deed, vide document No. 6094/2025, dated 27.12.2025, in book No.1, executed by the 4th respondent, in favour of the 5th respondent, within a time frame fixed by Court, and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Rajagopalan Government Standing Counsel

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 and to consequently cancel the registration of the settlement deed by Doc.No.6094/2025 dated 27.12.2025.

2. Heard Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rajagopalan, learned Government Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. I have also perused the material records of the case.

3. It is settled law that the Sub Registrar has no power to cancel the registration that is already made. Useful reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyapal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2016 [10] SCC 767, can be made in this regard. An express provision was however given under section 77A for the Sub Registrar to conduct an enquiry and categorize as the documents as fraudulent documents. However, subsequently this Court in Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration and Others, (2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6154) has declared that the said provision as unconstitutional and therefore, presently the Sub Registrar has no power to conduct an enquiry and grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner.

4. The impugned order has rightly been passed by referring to the said order under declining the relief to the petitioner.

5. In view thereof, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for relief, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.06.2026 rgm

To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, O/o. Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar (Admin), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3. The Sub Registrar, Kottaram, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

rgm and W.M.P(MD)No.12084 of 2026 15.06.2026