Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Srimathy, J
S.Subaitha Beevi – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.16459 of 2024 | WMP(MD)Nos.14261 to 14263 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3, Mr.V.Karthikeyan for R4 and R5
Registrar lacks jurisdiction under struck-down Section 77A to cancel registrations in title disputes; approach civil court.
Headnote:The Registration Act, particularly Section 77A, was examined by a Larger Bench which held that title disputes cannot be adjudicated by the Registrar thereunder, with the Full Bench striking down the provision. Petitioner alleged fraudulent registration of a settlement deed through impersonation and forgery concerning inherited property sold in 1957 and 1960, passed via Hiba in 2012, seeking quashing and deletion from records. Court found no basis for interference under writ jurisdiction due to Section 77A's invalidity. Key issue: Whether Registrar can cancel registration under Section 77A for alleged forgery in title dispute. Ratio: Registrar lacks jurisdiction over title disputes post Larger and Full Bench rulings striking down Section 77A; writ court cannot direct cancellation. Writ petition disposed of, liberty granted to approach Civil Court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. section 77a inapplicable due to larger/full bench rulings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. direct to civil court; writ petition disposed. (Para 7) |
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash impugned settlement deed vide document No. 1/2820/2023 dated 11.05.2023 registered by the 3rd respondent and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to delete the entries relating to the above document from the A Register maintained in the office of the 3rd respondent.
2.1.The brief facts of the case are that the property in survey No.70/1 to the extent of 1 acre 94 cents situated at Vetriyur Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, was originally belonging to one Mr.Palaniappa Chettiyar, S/o. Karuppan Chettiyar and the property was inherited by Mr.M.L.Lakshmanan Chettiyar and thereafter, his son whose name is also Lakshmana Chettiyar. The patta in respect of the above land was in the name of Mr.Palaniappa Chettiyar, S/o. Karuppan Chettiyar, who is great grandfather of M.L.Lakshmanan Chettiyar. Out of the total extent, Mr.Abdulla @ Pranmalai Rowther had purchased 47 cents through registered sale deed dated 30.12.1957 vide document No.1880/1957 from the above said L.Lakshmanan Chettiyar. He has been in the possession and enjoyment of the property.
2.2.The above said Abdullah @ Pranmalai Rowther had sold the property to the petitioner's father-in-law Mr.Mohamed Sheriff by registered sale deed dated 29.02.1960 vide document No.170/1960. Though the above property to the extent of 47 cents, out of total extent of 1 Acre 94 cents, was purchased in the year 1957 by the above said Abdullah @ Pranmalai Rowther and thereafter purchased by the petitioner's father-in-law, the patta had been standing in the name of Mr.Palaniappa Chettiyar, S/o.Karuppan Chettiyar without any sub- division. However, the petitioner's father-in-law have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, the petitioner's father-in-law had executed a Hiba settlement dated 08.02.2012 in favour of the petitioner's husband Mr.Sheik Mohamed Abdullah. After the settlement, the petitioner's husband has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the petitioner's husband is working in Abroad, he has executed power of attorney dated 28.12.2023 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the above property and the petitioner has been maintaining the property. 2.3. The petitioner has approached the Tahsildar of Karaikudi for getting patta in favour of the petitioner's husband in respect of the above property, the petitioner came to understand that the patta has been recently changed in the name of one Singaram, the 5th respondent herein. Subsequently, the petitioner has enquired about the 5th respondent and came to know that the 4th and 5th respondents have conspired together and created false and fabricated settlement deed dated 11.05.2023 by fabricating the documents and impersonating as if they are the sons of Karuppan Chettiyar.
2.4. Taking advantage of the fact that the patta still stands in the name of Palaniyappa Chettiyar, who is great grandfather of Mr.L.Lakshmana Chettiyar, the 4th and 5th respondents have impersonated themselves as if they are sons of the said Mr.Karuppan Chettiyar. The 4th respondent has impersonated as if he is the Palaniyappa Chettiyar. In fact, when the sale deed was executed by the Mr.L.Lakshmana Chettiyar in the year 1957, the patta holder Mr.Palaniappa Chettiyar and his father Mr.Karuppan Chettiyar were no more. While so, the 4th respondent has impersonated himself as the patta holder Mr.Palaniappa Chettiyar and fabricated the settlement deed and registered the same in the office of the 3rd respondent vide document No.2820/2023.
2.5. During the relevant period of registration, one Mr. Saravana Pandi was working as Sub-Registrar in the office of the 3rd respondent. The above said Sub-Registrar Mr. Saravana Pandi along with Mr. Karuppan Chettiyar who is Son
