Viruthambal v. The Inspector General Of Registration
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD)No.19377 of 2025 Viruthambal
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600028.
2. The Deputy Inspector General Of Registration, Rajagambeeram, Yanamalai Othakadai, Madurai - 625107.
3. The District Registrar, Madurai South, Madurai - 625001.
4. Balasundari.
...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 of the impugned orders in Na.Ka.No. 10509/Aa4/2022 dated 07.02.2025 and the subsequent order in Na.Ka.No. 3845/Aa4/2022 dated 04.03.2025 on the file of 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the forged sale deed in Doc.No.5716/1999 dated 02.11.1999 within a time limit as stipulated by this Honourable Court and pass such further or other Page No. 1 of 7
orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : M/s..I. Romeo Roy Alfred For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar, Additional Government Pleader For R1 to R3
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned orders in Na.Ka.No.10509/Aa4/2022 dated 07.02.2025 and the subsequent order in Na.Ka.No.3845/Aa4/2022 dated 04.03.2025 on the file of 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the forged sale deed in Doc.No.5716/1999 dated 02.11.1999 .
2. Through the impugned order, the respondents refused to pass any final order since Section 77A strucked down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a stenotypist in the Government Medical College and he was retired in the year 2006. The petitioner is having two sisters namely Meenambal and Panchavarnam. The fourth respondent herein is the daughter of Page No. 2 of 7
Panchavarnam. The elder sister Meenambal had no children and died in the year 2007 and her husband predeceased in the year 1966. The said Meenambal had a self-acquired property in S.No.440/1, to an extent of 749 Sq.ft, at Madakulam Village through sale deed dated 28.09.1971. In the year February 1979, she purchased 3 cents of land in S.No.97/9B in Doc.No.609 of 1979. Thereafter, constructed house in the said plot. The said Meenambal was residing till her demise i.e, on 14.12.2007. The fourth respondent frequently visited the said Meeambal and threatened as if she was taking care of the said Meenambal. The children of Panchavarnam and the petitioners are the surviving legal heirs of the said Meenambal, they are entitled to succeed the said properties. But all of a sudden, the fourth respondent illegally occupied the house located in S.No.
97/9B and took possession of the same. When the petitioner questioned the same, the fourth respondent showed a forged sale deed claiming to have been executed by the said Meenambal in the year 1999. Hence, the petitioner had preferred a complaint. However, the third respondent without appreciating the facts, passed an order dated 17.02.2022. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The respondents failed to entertain the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition.
Page No. 3 of 7
3. On perusal of the the impugned order it reveals that the respondents have stated that since the appeal has been preferred under section 77A of the Registration Act. But, the said section was strucked down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, therefore, they could not entertain the appeal. The respondents are absolutely right after the declaration of Section 77A of Registration Act as ultra vires, then the respondents are not having power to entertain the appeal. Even in the order passed in Na.K.aNo.240/Aa2/2022 dated 17.02.2022 passed by the third respondent is an order passed without power and the same is non-est in the eye of law. When the appeal is preferred against the said order, the respondents are not entitled to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order declining the entertainment of the appeal is valid.
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the sale deed executed in favour of the 4th respondent, he shall get appropriate remedy before the competent civil Court. The petitioner is at liberty to initiate proceedings under Civil Law. The order impugned in this writ petition is sustained. Page No.
4. With the above said observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
08.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes gvn Page No. 5 of 7
To:
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600028.
2. The Deputy Inspector General Of Registration, Rajagambeeram, Yanamalai Othakadai, Madurai - 625107 3.The District Registrar, MaduraiSouth, Madurai - 625001.
Page No. 6 of 7
S.SRIMATHY , J.
gvn ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 19377 of 2025 DATED : 08.08.2025 Page No. 7 of 7