2025:MHC:801 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN Writ Appeal No.643 of 2025 T.Thevarasan .. Appellant vs

1.The Sub Registrar Joint II, South Chennai, Chennai 600 002.

2.The District Registrar, South Chennai, Chennai.

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Combined Commercial Tax and Registration Department, Compound, Ground Floor, Veternary Hospital Road, Penpet, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. .. Respondents Prayer : APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16.04.2024 made in W.P.No.11897 of 2023.

For Appellant : Mr.N.Naganathan For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

The writ petitioner is the appellant. He had filed the writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging orders of the District Registrar (R2) and Deputy Inspector General of Registration (R3) dated 29.01.2020 and 27.02.2023 and consequential direction to the respondents to cancel settlement deed dated 29.01.2016. The writ petition had come to be dismissed by an order dated 16.04.2024, as against which, the present writ appeal has been filed.

2.The case of the writ petitioner was that he is the owner of the property at Plot No.10 at Rajagopal Street, comprised in Old Survey No.77/2, Old T.S.No.4, 4/26, Saidapet Village, Mambalam Taluk (property/property in question). The appellant had permitted one N.Ganapathy, who was his brother-in-law to reside in that house along with his wife, who was his sister. The sister had passed away in 1986 after which, said Ganapathy is stated to have resided in that house along with a lady by name Suseela.

3.The appellant would allege that he had taken efforts to evict the couple from the property in question and on account of the difficulties faced in evicting them, had filed a police complaint as early as on

14.01.1989.

4.While so, Ganapathy passed away on 22.06.2016 without leaving behind any legal heirs. Thereafter, Suseela, according to the appellant, had executed a settlement deed fraudulently as though the property in question had been settled in her favour. Coming to know of the same, the appellant had moved an application before the authority seeking cancellation of the settlement deed suffering the orders impugned in the writ petition.

5.By way of detailed order, the writ Court has concluded that the authorities do not have the power to cancel a settlement deed. In any event, the writ Court could not have considered the arguments that the settlement deed had been executed fraudulently and that the signatures of Ganapathy had been forged, as they require marshalling and appreciation of facts and evidence.

6.The writ Court further notes the admitted position that the same parties i.e. the writ petitioner and Ganapathy, were engaged in civil disputes, and that Second Appeal in S.A.No.494 of 2019 is presently pending before this Court, at the instance of appellant.

7.For the aforesaid reasons, the Court concludes that the proper remedy for the appellant would be to file a suit to establish his right in the Civil Courts, making it further clear that any observations made in order dated 16.04.2024 would not stand to the deterrent of the parties in deciding such suit, if and when filed.

8.The appellant is aggrieved for the reason that, according to him, the settlement deed has been executed fraudulently. For this purpose, he would make an attempt to compare the personal details of the settler with the Aadhar card of Ganapathy, which is placed in the typed set. He draws attention to the mismatch in father's name as well as the voter I.D. number. We are not inclined to look into these particulars as this would entail an appreciation of disputed facts.

9.It is the specific grievance of the appellant that Ganapathy had died without legal heirs and in fact, the Second Appeal, pending before this Court would have a