HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
Ponnupillai G – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar – Respondent
WP(MD)/2702/2023
W.P(MD)No.2702 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.2702 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.2459 of 2023
G.Ponnupillai
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Administration,
District Registrar Office,
Periyakulam, Theni District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Theni,
Theni District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Chinnamanur,
Theni District.
4.P.Somasundaram
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to
order for enquiry by the second respondent about the fradulent transfer of
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2702 of 2023
property effected by the fourth respondent as per Document No.10561 / 2022
and not to register any sale transaction by the second and third respondents
with regard to the petitioner's property till the disposal of the enquiry.
For Petitioner
: Mr.V.R.G.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeskumar
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
2. The fourth respondent is none other than the son of the petitioner.
The petitioner executed settlement deed in favour of his son on 28.06.2002.
Based on the said settlement deed, the fourth respondent had entered into a
deed of exchange in the year 2005 (07.11.2005). The other party to the said
exchange deed is one Maharajan. The said Maharajan has not been shown as
party in the present writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that though the settlement deed was
executed in the year 2002, it was never acted upon and the original document
is still with the writ petitioner. The petitioner had also made paper publication.
However, the fourth respondent had chosen to project as if the document had
gone missing and based on such averment, had concluded the exchange
transaction with the said Maharajan. The petitioner wants this Court to direct
2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2702 of 2023
the first respondent to conduct an enquiry in this regard.
4. The petitioner has slept for too long. Admittedly, the transactions are
of the year 2002-05. During the relevant time, there were no circular or
statutory provision enabling the registering authority to cancel the registered
document. The petitioner cannot take advantage of subsequent legal
developments. Vide order dated 02.01.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.6947 of 2019,
(E.Geetha Helan Alexandria Vs. Joint Sub Registrar No.II, Dindigul), I had
held that the circulars issued by the IG of Registration as well as Section 77 A
of the Act will not operate retrospectively.
5. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The petitioner has to establish his rights only before the jurisdictional civil
Court. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter.
6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.02.2023
Index
: Yes / No
Internet
: Yes/ No
rmi
3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2702 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
To
1.The District Registrar,
Administration,
District Registrar Office,
Periyakulam, Theni District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Theni,
Theni District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Chinnamanur,
Theni District.
W.P(MD)No.2702 of 2023
09.02.2023
4/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis