Kathiravan v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Kathiravan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Registrar, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Madurai.
4.The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madurai Sub Zonal Office, Madurai.
... Respondents (R3 and R4 are suo motu impleaded vide order dated 30.10.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.30704 of 2025 by GRSJ) Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 1/6
2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.367/2025 dated 08.10.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the registration in respect of the schedule of properties in Doc.No.536 of 2020 dated 12.05.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2.
Mr.M.Karunanithi for R3 Mr.K.R.Laxman for R4
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of his son. When it was presented for registration, the registering authority informed the petitioner that he has received communication from the Central Investigative Agencies namely, CBI and ED that no transfer should be permitted in respect of the petition mentioned property. Challenging the stand of the registering authority, this writ petition came to be filed. 2/6
3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel for CBI as well as ED submitted that the writ petitioner is not an accused in any of the cases investigated by them. They further clarified that they have not sought attachment of the petition mentioned property. 4.In view of the clarification provided by the learned standing counsel for investigating agency, the objection raised by the registering authority cannot survive. In this view of the matter, the impugned refusal check slip is quashed. The document in question shall be registered. It shall be released subject to the other usual legal formalities. 5.The learned standing counsel for ED submits that the property was owned by a company known as Vee Bee Holdings and that it appears to have cheated people to the tune of more than Rs.392 Crores.
The said Vee Bee Holdings sold the property in favour of M/s.Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Energy Private Limited. Kathiravan, the petitioner herein, is none other than the Director of the said company. Kathiravan obtained sale deed in his name from the said M/s.Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Energy Private Limited and he is now settling it in favour of his son.
title of the property is traceable to Vee Bee Holdings, which is an accused, the respondents 3 and 4 seek liberty from this Court to attach this property also, if it is found that it constitutes proceeds of crime. 6.The investigating agencies / the respondents 3 and 4 always have the said power. It does not require a formal leave from this Court. It is, however, made clear that the outcome of this writ petition will not in any way come in the way of the respondents 3 and 4 from exercising their power as per law.
7.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 25.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias/SKM Note : Issue order copy on 15.12.2025 4/6
To:- 1.The District Registrar, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram, Thoothukudi District.
5/6
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias/SKM 25.11.2025 6/6