SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhoose, J
Sri Hari P.S – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, (IGR) – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban
For the Respondents: Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader [R1 to R3]

Registration Department cannot cancel registered documents; must register civil court judgments and decide with speaking order if refused.

Headnote:First Paragraph: The writ petition under Article 226 seeks quashing of fraudulent encumbrance entries in Encumbrance Certificate for property in Survey No.35/3A, Palavakkam Village, relying on civil court judgments in O.S.No.14011 of 2010 dated 22.01.2016 and A.S.No.102 of 2020 dated 05.08.2025. Court finds no legal impediment for Registration Department to register such civil judgments, as only civil courts can cancel registered documents upon evidence. Court directs petitioner to present judgments for registration. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether Registration Department can remove fraudulent entries without registration of civil judgments. Ratio: Registration Department lacks power to cancel registered documents; must register civil court judgments and decide on objections, passing speaking order if refusing. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing petitioner to present judgments within two weeks; Sub-Registrar to decide within eight weeks after hearing objections.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks removal of fraudulent encumbrance entries. (Para 1 , 2)
2. civil judgments registrable; department cannot cancel documents. (Para 3 , 4)
3. direct registration of judgments with time-bound decision. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

The petitioner seeks removal of the alleged fraudulent encumbrance entries made in the Encumbrance Certificate for the property morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition.

2. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is passed against the respondents 4 to 23 in this writ petition, notice to the respondents 4 to 23 is dispensed with by this Court.

3. The petitioner relies upon the civil court judgments passed in his favour in support of the prayer sought for in this writ petition. Instead of presenting those civil court judgments for registration with the Registration Department, the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition for removal of the alleged fraudulent encumbrance entries made in the Encumbrance Certificate for the subject property.

4. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s contentions in this writ petition. However, there is no legal impediment for the registration department to register the civil court judgments, which according to the petitioner are passed in his favour. The law is now well settled that the registration department cannot cancel a registered document as it is only the civil court, which is having the said power as oral and documentary is required to be produced by the party, who is seeking cancellation of registered documents.

5. This Court expressed its view to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would now submit that the petitioner is willing to present the civil court judgments passed in his favour for registration with the 3rd respondent and a direction may be issued to the 3rd respondent to take a decision as to whether the said civil court judgments can be registered or not, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to present the civil court judgments passed in O.S.No.14011 of 2010, dated 22.01.2016 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and A.S.No.102 of 2020, dated 05.08.2025 on the file of this Court, for registration with the 3rd respondent, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On presentation of the same within the stipulated time, the 3rd respondent, after hearing the objections of the respondents 4 to 23, shall take a final decision as to whether the aforesaid judgments can be registered or not, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. In case, the 3rd respondent decides to refuse registration of the aforesaid judgments, 3rd respondent shall pass a speaking order as to why the aforesaid judgments presented by the petitioner cannot be registered. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top