logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6073 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP. No. 10803 of 2026 & WMP. No. 24966 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Parties : G. Ilangovan Versus The District Registrar (Administration), Tambaram & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: VigneshVenkatachalam, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, V. Tamizhanban, Government Advocate, R3 & R4, S. Kousik, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
Registration Act - Section 34(3) -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Article 266 of the Constitution of India
- Section 34(3) of the Registration Act
- Section 83 of the Registration Act

2. Catch Words:
- Mandamus
- Fraud
- Registration
- Complaint

3. Summary:
- The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to act on a complaint dated 21‑01‑2026 concerning a fraudulent sale deed dated 09‑06‑2022.
- The petitioner claims ownership of a property purchased in 1985, which was later fraudulently sold by an impostor.
- The 2nd respondent (Sub‑Registrar) allegedly failed to conduct a proper enquiry under Section 34(3) of the Registration Act.
- Respondents 3 and 4 argue that the petitioner should file a complaint under Section 83 of the Registration Act.
- The Court observes apparent fraud and negligence in the registration of the 2022 deed.
- It directs the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's complaint after enquiry with respondents 2‑4 and orders the writ petition to be disposed of without costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 266 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take action on the petitioners complaint dated 21.01.2026 and pass order within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 1st respondent to take action on the petitioner’s complaint dated 21.01.2026 and pass order within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the property situated in S.No.108 (Madhurai Meenakshipuram) in No.8, Ayyancherry Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District from Shastri Bhavan Staff House Site and Welfare Society by way of sale deed dated 17.06.1985 registered as Doc.No.4654 of 1985 on the file of the SRO, Tambaram. Since then, the petitioner has been absolute owner of the said property. However, the revenue records were not mutated as the petitioner was stationed at Maharashtra as he was working as Sub-Division Officer of the Water Resources Department, Maharashtra. After his superannuation, the petitioner filed an application before the Tahsildar, Vandalur seeking for name transfer in patta and he came to know that the petitioner’s aforesaid property was sold fraudulently by way of sale deed dated 09.06.2022 in Doc.No.9635 of 2022, on the file of SRO, Guduvancherry, the 2nd respondent herein.

3. He would further submit that an impostor has impersonated the petitioner’s identity claiming to be G.Elangovan, forged identity of the documents and fraudulently sold the schedule property to the respondents 3 and 4 and on the same day, the respondents 3 and 4 have created Memorandum of Deposit of Title dated 09.06.2022 registered on the file of the 2nd respondent in favour of M/s.HDFC Bank Ltd., Upon learning of the fraudulent deed, the petitioner made a complaint dated 21.01.2026 to the 1st respondent seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 09.06.2022 registered in Doc.No.9635 of 2022 on the file the 2nd respondent as a forged and fraudulent document. However, the 1st respondent on 25.02.2026 orally stated that no steps would be taken on the petitioner’s complaint. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. He would also submit that the 2nd respondent has not conducted proper enquiry in terms of Section 34(3) of the Registration Act. The copy of the sale deed dated 17.06.1985 attached along with the sale deed 09.06.2022 itself shows variations in the signature. The 2nd respondent has not been diligent in verifying the document; otherwise, this registration would not have happened with the connivance of the 2nd respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that the petitioner can very well file a complaint as per Section 83 of the Registration Act, as held by this Court in very many cases.

6. Learned Government’s Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner’s representation will be considered and orders will be passed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government’s Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

8. Considering the submissions made by both parties, this Court is of the view that, upon a mere perusal of the sale deed dated 17.06.1985 and the said sale deed verified at the time of registration of sale deed dated 09.06.2022, it is apparent that certain fraudulent act appears to have been committed. There also appears to be negligence on the part of the Sub-Registrar / 2nd respondent in registering the sale deed dated 09.06.2022, as the signatures of the parties in sale deed dated 17.06.1985 verified at the time of registration of the sale deed dated 09.06.2022, appears to be different from those found in the sale deed dated 17.06.1985 filed by the petitioner at Page No.20 of the typed set of papers. Therefore this Court directs the 1st respondent to dispose of the complaint filed by the petitioner on 21.01.2022 after conducting enquiry with the respondents 2 to 4 and take appropriate steps.

9. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal