##PAGE1##

2024:MHC:1506 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20-03-2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM And THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR WA No.3391 of 2023 And CMP No.27724 of 2023 Netvantage Technologies Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.Pankaj Nath, Having Registered Office at:

Vijaya (1^st Floor) 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001. .. Appellant -vs-

##PAGE2##

1.The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028, Tamil Nadu, India.

2.The Deputy Registrar, Sankara Naidu Street, Thiruppathiripuliyur, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-607 002.

3.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar Complex, 63/40, Perumal Koil Street, Gingee Road, Tindivanam-604 001.

4.Durai

5.Ilavarasan

6.Venkatesan

7.Balaguru .. Respondents Writ Appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in WP No.20423 of 2023 dated 01.11.2023.

##PAGE3##

For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Ms.Deepika Murali.

For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.B.Vijay, Additional Government Pleader.

For Respondents-4 to 7 : Mr.M.V.Seshachari

J U D G M E N T

[JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The present writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 01.11.2023 passed in WP No.20423 of 2023.

2. The writ petitioner-Company is the appellant before us.

3. The appellant purchased the subject property in Survey Nos.215/1B, 216/1C, 216/2B, 217/2 and 227/2 vide document No.4078 of

##PAGE4##

2007 dated 28.09.2007. The vendor to the appellant purchased the said property on 21.12.2004. The respondents 4 to 7 claiming title over the subject property submitted an application before the District Registrar-third respondent, seeking cancellation of the documents registered in favour of the vendor to the appellant in the year 2004 and the appellant in the year 2007. The District Registrar conducted summary proceedings and cancelled the said two Sale Deeds as fraudulent. An appeal under Section 77-B of the Registration Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short], was filed before the first respondent-Inspector General of Registration, who in turn, confirmed the order passed by the District Registrar. Thus the appellant instituted the writ proceedings, challenging the order passed by the District Registrar under Section 77-A and the appellate order passed under Section

77-B of the Act.

4. The Writ Court formed an opinion that the title dispute exist between the appellant and the respondents 4 to 7 and therefore, the parties have to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of resolving the issues. Since the writ petition was disposed of, without granting the relief to the appellant-Company, they have chosen to file the present writ appeal.

##PAGE5##

5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that power to cancel the Sale Deed had not been conferred to the District Registrar during the relevant point of time. Thus the application entertained for cancellation of Sale Deed, per se, is without jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority and the Writ Court have not considered the jurisdictional point raised by the appellant and therefore, the present writ appeal is to be considered.

6. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, would oppose the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant by stating that the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the Inspector General of Registration was in force still 08.11.2017. Further an enquiry was conducted by the District Registrar by affording opportunity. That apart, the validity of the Circular had been upheld by the Writ Court. For all these reasons, the writ order is to be confirmed.

##PAGE6##

7. Perusal of Section 68 of the Act, reveals that Power of Registrar to superintend and control the Sub-Registrars are conferred. The very Chapter itself stipula