IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

and

W.M.P. No.44887 of 2025

1.A.A.Kala

2.A.A.Varalakshmi

3.A.A.Kumaran

4.A.A.Sastha Prabhu

5.A.A.Dayasankar

6.K.Devi

7.S.Sathya Priya

8.Minor A.S.Ramyasri

Rep. By mother and natural guardian

S.Sathya Priya .. Petitioners

Vs

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,

Chennai Zone, Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

3.The District Registrar,

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

4.The Sub Registrar,

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

5.The Sub Registrar,

Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 078.

6.K.Muthu .. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2621/Aa1/2021 dated 09.09.2022 and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Munuswamy For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The fourth respondent herein filed an application under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 seeking cancellation of certain registered conveyances and for the effacement of entries relating thereto from the Register of encumbrances. The said request was rejected by order dated 15.04.2021. The said order was carried in appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and such appeal was allowed partly by order dated 09.09.2022. The appellate order is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order dated 15.04.2021 and pointed out that the subject thereof itself indicates that the petitioner's request was for cancellation of the documents mentioned therein. In effect, he contends that the application was in the nature of an application under Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908. On account of Section 77-A being held as unconstitutional in M.Kathirvel and others vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others (2024 (4) CTC 769) (Kathirvel), learned counsel submits that the appellate order cannot be sustained. By referring to the impugned appellate order, learned counsel submits that a finding has been recorded that the fourth respondent is the owner of ¼^th share in the properties forming the subject of the documents referred to therein. By referring to the operative part of the order, he points out that it is recorded therein that Document No.2621 of 2021 dated 09.09.2022 was executed by a person who does not have a right to do so and that further documents should not be registered on the basis of the said document. Learned counsel contends that these directions are without authority and are liable to be interfered with.

3. In response, learned counsel for the sixth respondent, first referred to the application made by the sixth respondent. He submits that the application was made under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act and not under Section 77-A. By referring to Section 68(2) read with Rule 116(a), learned counsel submits that it empowers the Registrar to make a note and that such power may be exercised notwithstanding Section 77-A being struck down. By referring to the operative part of the appellate order, learned counsel submits that cancellation has not been directed. He also relies upon the judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S.Nos.379 and 380 of 2006 to contend that it was concluded therein that the predecessors in interest of the petitioner do not have any title over the suit property. After pointing out that such finding was not interfered with even by the Court in second appeal, learned counsel submits that the conclusion in the operative part does not contain any infirmity. Indeed, he submits that it is fully within the powers of the Registrar under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that Section

77-A was introduced on 16.08.2022 and that the order of the District Registrar