IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.4366 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.4878 & 4879 of 2025 A.Poorani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, The District Registrar Office, Tindivanam.

2.The Sub Registrar, The Office of Sub Registrar, Vanur, Villupuram 605 109.

3.M.R.Singhwi

4.P.Thamodharan ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records leading to pass the impugned proceedings dated 23.05.2022 passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1608/Aa1/ 2022 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jagadish For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.D.Senthilkumar for R4

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 23.05.2022, wherein, the 1^st respondent has directed nearly eight documents to be not valid and illegal and further directed the Sub Registrar viz., the 2^nd respondent to carryout the necessary entries in the Encumbrance Certificate.

2.Heard Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1& 2 and Mr.D.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4^th respondent.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the subject property through a registered Sale Deed dated 15.07.2015 registered as Document No.3998 of 2015. A representation seems to have been made by the 3^rd respondent before the 1^st respondent to the effect that a suit was filed in O.S.No.233 of 2018 before the Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam and based on the same, all the fabricated documents numbering nine have to be declared as illegal and necessary entries must be made in the records. The same was acted upon and the impugned proceedings were issued by the 1^st respondent dated 23.05.2022 which has been put to challenge in the present writ petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4^th respondent submitted that there are two sets of documents that were created/fabricated by the parties. One set of documents were created by the persons belonging to P.S.Arumugam and other set of documents were created by persons belonging to the petitioner's husband viz., Azhagappan. All these documents were created without any right or title over the property to the prejudice of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the entire order and whereas, the right of the petitioner is only confined to the property that has been conveyed in favour of the petitioner through Sale Deed dated 15.07.2015. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner cannot get the entire order set aside which deals with various other documents and property.

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents submitted that the 1^st respondent has acted upon the suit that was filed in O.S.No.233 of 2018 by Rajeshwari and others seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and based on the same, nearly nine documents that were created was held to be illegal.

6.In the considered view of this Court, the only power that was available to the District Registrar was under Section 77A of the Registration Act. The said provision has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration and others reported in 2024 4 CTC 769. In view of the same, the District Registrar cannot declare any document to be illegal/not valid or cancel those documents either in exercise of powers under Section 68(2) and/or 77A of the Registration Act. If at all any decree has been passed by the competent Civil Court declaring certain documents to be null and void or declarin