Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
K.N.Durgabai – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
Writ Petition | W.M.P.No.13015 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.A.K.Rajaraman
For the Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP (R1 to R4)

Registration Department cannot cancel registered sale deeds alleging fraud; civil court jurisdiction required for title adjudication.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged a sale deed dated 20.09.2002 registered as Document No.4405 of 2002, alleging fraudulent execution by a cultivating tenant from the petitioner's mother on her deathbed. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ of mandamus was sought to direct the District Registrar to inquire and cancel the deed. The court held that the Registration Department lacks jurisdiction to cancel registered documents requiring title adjudication, which necessitates oral and documentary evidence. The key issue was whether the Registration Department could adjudicate fraud in execution of the sale deed. The court observed that settled law prevents the Registration Department from cancelling documents where title disputes arise, as such matters fall under the domain of competent civil courts. The ratio decidendi is that registration authorities cannot determine fraudulent execution involving evidence; civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to approach the civil court. No costs were imposed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner alleges fraudulent sale deed execution on deathbed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. registration department lacks jurisdiction over fraud and title disputes. (Para 3 , 4)

ORDER

The petitioner seeks for cancellation of a sale deed dated 20.09.2002 through this writ petition, which, according to the petitioner, is a fraudulent sale deed obtained by the fifth respondent in her favour.

2. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner’s mother was on her death bed, the fifth respondent, who was only a cultivating tenant, had fraudulently obtained a sale deed in her favour on 20.09.2002 registered as Document No.4405 of 2002.

3. The law is now well settled by various decisions rendered by this Court that the Registration Department cannot cancel the registered document wherever adjudication of title is required. In the case on hand, the petitioner claims that the sale deed dated 20.09.2002 referred to supra was fraudulently obtained by the fifth respondent from her mother, while she was in her death bed.

4. The contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition with regard to the fraudulent execution of sale deed dated 20.09.2002 in favour of the fifth respondent require oral and documentary evidence. The Registration Department cannot adjudicate whether the sale deed dated 20.09.2002 was executed fraudulently or not, and the same can be adjudicated only by a competent civil court by considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties. Therefore, in view of the settled law, this Court is not entertaining this writ petition, and accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court to seek the relief as prayed for in this writ petition. No Cost. W.M.P.No.13015 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASABDUL QUDDHOSE, JK.N.Durgabai – AppellantVersusThe Inspector General of Registration – RespondentWrit Petition | W.M.P.No.13015 of 2026

Registration Department cannot cancel registered sale deeds alleging fraud; civil court jurisdiction required for title adjudication.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
K.N.Durgabai – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
Writ Petition | W.M.P.No.13015 of 2026