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

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.

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.

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 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 the fourth respondent would submit that the registration of the sale deed constitutes a clear abuse of power and that the order has been rightly passed under Section 82 of the Act. In fact, the civil suit between the parties is still pending.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

9. It is clear from the impugned order that an endorsement has been directed to be made in the encumbrance certificate of the property, stating that the document was presented by furnishing incorrect information and that it is a fraudulent document. It is true that the relevant provision, that is Section 77-A, has now been struck down. However, it is also to be noted that this is not a case involving any other allegation of fraud or a pure title dispute.

10. In the present case, arguments are made that:

i.The property stood in the name of the wife, and the husband executed the sale deed. As per Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in order to effect a transfer, a person should either be entitled to transfer or be authorised to transfer the property.
ii.By virtue of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, all the interest in the property stood transferred in the name of the wife.
iii.The husband is not claiming to be authorised by any power or other document to execute the deed on behalf of his wife. Neither is he claiming his wife’s consent to consider himself an ostensible owner.

iv.In the absence thereof, or in the absence of any decree of the competent Civil Court, he cannot effect a transfer. A suit for declaration is pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent before the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur, in O.S.No.39 of 2018.
v.Even though the claim per se is not a prohibited transaction as per Section 2(9)(A)(iii) of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988, the civil Court has to consider the classic six tests to determine the claim of ownership. Reference is made to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mangathai Ammal -Vs- Rajeshwari and others(2020 17 SCC 496).

11. Considering the peculiar circumstances in this case, it can be seen that by virtue of the Judgment in Kadirvel cited supra, in view of Section 77-A being declared unconstitutional, the impugned orders passed in exercise of the powers have to be set aside and the petitioner or any person claiming through her will have further right to deal with the property. By the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi -Vs- Sub-Registrar and others(2026 2 SCC 696 – paragraphs 18 & 19), the fourth respondent is contending that her title never got affected and she can present documents for registration. In this scenario, it is apt to refer to paragraph 15 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj Lamp Industries (P) Limited -VS- State of Haryana (2012 1 SCC 656) :

“15. In the earlier order dated 15-5-2009 [(2009) 7 SCC 363 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] , the objects and benefits of registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference: (SCC p. 367, paras 15-18)

“15. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration.

16. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future ‘any right, title or interest’ whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs 100 and upwards to or in immovable property.

17. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affected such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed.

18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.”

Registration of documents makes the process of verification and certification of title easier and simpler. It reduces disputes and litigations to a large extent.”

12. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the relief that is to be granted to the parties is moulded and granted in the following manner:
vi.The impugned orders dated 27.06.2022 and 25.10.2022 shall stand quashed.
vii.Since the suit O.S.No.39 of 2018 is of the year 2018, the learned District Munsif, Thirupathur, is requested to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than eight months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order.
viii.Until then, both sides shall maintain the status quo, and no further documents shall be presented for registration.
ix.It is made clear that the title in respect of the property shall be decided on its own merits, not on the basis of setting aside of these impugned orders.

13. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

07.04.2026
JEN
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
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.

Copy To : The District Munsif Court, Thirupathur.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
JEN

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

07.04.2026