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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice V. PARTHIBAN
CHOKKALINGAM.M – Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION – Respondent
WP(MD)/4753/2021



W.P.(MD)No.4753 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 08.03.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

W.P.(MD)No.4753 of 2021

and

W.M.P.(MD)No.3866 of 2021

M.Chokkalingam

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

Inspector General of Registration Office,

No.100, Santhome High Road,

Rajaannamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

2.The District Registrar,

Registrar Office, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

3.The Sub Registrar,

Sub Registrar Office-Joint No.II,

Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

4.SM.Sanmugavel

: Respondents

PRAYER :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking a Writ of Declaration, to declare that Power

Cancellation deed dated 07.10.2016 registered as Document

No.5595/2016 on the file of the third respondent is null and void

and consequently to direct the third respondent to remove the entry

made as Document No.5595/2016 in book No.IV on the file of the third

respondent, namely, the Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Joint-

II, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District in accordance with law.

For Petitioner

:Mr.K.Lavan

For R1 to R3

:Mr.K.Sathiya Singh

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent has

executed a General Power of Attorney jointly in favour of the

petitioner and one K.Thiyagarajan, in respect of subject property

and the same was registered as Document No.53 of 2014 on the file of

the Sub Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. After the

execution of the General Power of Attorney, dated 24.06.2014, the

petitioner and the other agent filed an application before the

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD)No.4753 of 2021

Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai on 09.07.2014 for

cancellation of patta wrongly issued in favour of one Saroja and

others and to issue patta in favour of the petitioner's principal,

Mr.M.Shanmugaval, the fourth respondent herein, for the subject

property. An enquiry was conducted and on conclusion of the same,

on 06.09.2016, an order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer

directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Assistant

Settlement Officer, if they wanted any relief.

2.While the matter stood thus, the fourth respondent without

giving any notice to the petitioner, unilaterally executed a

cancellation deed, dated 07.10.2016 before the third respondent and

cancelled the power granted to the petitioner and one

N.Thiyagarajan. Without knowing the cancellation of power deed, the

petitioner appears to have filed an appeal before the Assistant

Settlement Officer on 11.02.2020 as against the order of patta

transfer, dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Karaikudi Special

Tahsildar, Town Land Tax Scheme. In response to his appeal, the

petitioner has also received enquiry notice from the Assistant

Settlement Officer on 02.12.2020. Thereafter, vide proceeding,

dated 24.12.2020, a memo was issued by the Assistant Settlement

Officer stating that the power of attorney was already cancelled and

therefore, the petitioner's name stood removed from the appeal. In

the above circumstances, the petitioner has come up with the prayer

in the Writ Petition to declare the cancellation deed, dated

07.10.2016 as null and void.

3.This Court is unable to understand as to how a Writ Court to

be converted into a full fledged Civil Court by seeking declaration

of cancellation deed. In the affidavit, the petitioner has traced

back the transfer of subject property right from the year 1950.

Number of transactions appear to have happened in regard to the

subject property, viz., a Court auction sale, inheritance etc, and

finally a power was executed in favor of the petitioner in 2014.

4.In that view of the matter, the proper course of remedy for

the petitioner is to approach the Civil Co

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