Registering authority lacks jurisdiction to declare documents as null and void, necessitating resolution of property disputes in Civil Court.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.03.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD).Nos.10816 of 2024 and 4398 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).No.3150 of 2025 W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024 S.Navin Rengasamy .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Madurai Region, Madurai.

2.The District Registrar, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Sub Registrar, Iyyampalayam Sub Registration Office, Dindigul District - 624 204.

4.R.Suresh

5.Krishnapriya Parthasarathy .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 1^st respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.

5556/Aa4/2023 dated 04.03.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to cancel the registration of the Settlement Deed registered as Document No.1145/2019 registered on the file of the 3^rd respondent and for other reliefs.

For Petitioner : M/s.Krishnaveni Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Harish For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate For R-4 : Mr.J.Lawrence For R-5 : Mr.R.Murali for Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar W.P.(MD).No.4398 of 2025 P.Krishnapriya .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Integrated Complex of Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakampeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai - 625 107.

2.The District Registrar (Administrative), District Registrar Office, No.1, Dindigul East, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Sub-Registrar, Ayyampalayam Sub-Registrar Office, Shop No.13 1 2B, Perumalkoil Street, Ayyampalayam, Dindigul District 624 204.

4.R.Suresh

5.S.Naveen Rengasamy .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.5556/A4/2023 dated 04.03.2024 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same in respect of direction given therein to approach the Civil Court to render a judgment and till then preventing the petitioner from encumbering the property owned by her.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali for Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.J.Lawrence For R-5 : Mr.S.Harish

COMMON ORDER

W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024 and W.P.(MD).No.4398 of 2025 are filed challenging the very same proceedings of the first respondent. Hence, they were clubbed together by an order dated 25.02.2025.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their ranks in W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024.

3. The petitioner pleads that he was benefitted with a “WILL” on

10.08.2017 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Iyyampalayam, Dindigul District. This “WILL” had been executed by one R.Jeyalakshmi, who, according to the petitioner, is the owner of the property. The said Jeyalakshmi had divided the property into three schedules. The 'C' schedule mentioned property to the “WILL” was given as a life estate to the fourth respondent. After his life time, it would pass to the writ petitioner for life and finally, absolute right would vest in the children born to the writ petitioner. The petitioner claims that, without his knowledge, the fourth respondent executed a deed of settlement dated 30.07.2019 in favour of his aunt, one Krishnapriya Parthasarathy, who is the fifth respondent in W.P.(MD).No.10816 of 2024.

4. The plea of the writ petitioner is that as the fourth respondent has no right to alienate the property, hence, the settlement deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent is non-est, illegal and void.

5. The petitioner has given a representation to the second