##PAGE1##

W.P.(MD) No.2127 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 07.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.(MD) No.2127 of 2023 and

W.M.P.(MD) No.1894 of 2023

Kosalai ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Madurai Region, Madurai.

2.The District Registrar (Admin), Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Thiruppathur Sub Registrar Office,

Sivagangai District.

4.Pitchaimani ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.No. 6390/AA4/2021 dated 27.06.2022 and the enquiry proceedings of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.3807/A4/2022 dated 25.10.2022

and quash the same.

_____________ Page No. 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2026 01:24:52 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.2127 of 2023

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali

For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

For R4 : Mr.P.Santhana Krishnan

*****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings of

the first respondent dated 27.06.2022 and that of the second respondent

dated 25.10.2022.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon

perusal of the material records, it is seen that the case of the petitioner is that the property originally stood in the name of one Pitchimani, the fourth respondent herein. The husband of the fourth respondent, by name Desinguraja, had executed a document in favour of one Muthulakshmi in the year 2006, claiming that the property was actually purchased out of his own funds, though it stands in the name of his wife, Pitchimani, the fourth respondent herein and therefore he is entitled to deal with and convey the

said property. _____________ Page No. 2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2026 01:24:52 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.2127 of 2023

3. Thereafter, Muthulakshmi sold the property to the petitioner in

the year 2011. At this juncture, the fourth respondent made an application

alleging that the documents are fraudulent.

4. Originally, by order dated 29.07.2021, the District Registrar

rejected the petition filed by the fourth respondent for cancellation of the document, holding that a suit was already pending between the parties in O.S.No.39 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur. On appeal, the appellate authority held that when the property stands in the name of the fourth respondent, the husband of the fourth respondent had no power or authority to sell the property and directed that an entry be made that the documents were registered based on false information and are fraudulent in nature. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition

is filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would

submit that by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others reported in 2024 (4) CTC 769, Section 77-A of the Registration Act, 1908 has been held to be unconstitutional. Apart from the above, the Circulars

_____________ Page No. 3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2026 01:24:52 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.2127 of 2023

dated 08.11.2017 and 31.07.2018, which are relied upon by the registering authorities, were also challenged before the Division Bench in the said M.Kathirvel case, and were declared unconstitutional. Therefore, it is

submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing

on behalf of the official respondents would submit that the order was passed as early as 27.06.2022. It is further submitted that in the present case, even the authority to present the document is lacking, and therefore the said enquiry would fall within the purview of Section 83 of the

Registration Act, 1908.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of