| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 7095
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : WA No. 2582 of 2023 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN |
| Parties : E. Ganesan Versus The District Revenue Officer Chengalpattu District & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel S. Ganesan, Advocate. For the Respondents: K. Maheshwaran, AGP. |
| Date of Judgment : 22-09-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Registration Act - Section 77-A -
Case Referred:
M.Kathirvel and others vs. The Inspector General of Registration and others - (CDJ 2024 MHC 5265)
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Section 77-A of the Registration Act
2. Catch Words:
- Cancellation of registered documents
- Forgery
- Civil suit
- Registration
3. Summary:
The appellant filed a writ appeal against the order of the Single Judge who dismissed his petition seeking cancellation of certain registered documents on the ground of forgery. The appellant relied on the now‑unconstitutional Section 77‑A of the Registration Act to demand cancellation. The Division Bench in *M. Kathirvel v. IG Registration* held that registration authorities lack power to cancel documents, a view reiterated by the Single Judge. The appellate court affirmed that the proper remedy is a civil suit to establish title, after which the appellant may approach the authorities. No infirmity was found in the lower court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to pursue his claim in the District Munsif Court.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
(Prayer To set aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 in W.P.No. 17941 of 2023.)
Abdul Quddhose, J.
This writ appeal has been filed, challenging the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.17941 of 2023.
2. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 10.02.2023 under which the request of the petitioner to cancel all the documents registered in relation to the property, morefully disclosed in the writ petition was rejected.
3. The learned Single Judge upheld the order of the first respondent dated 10.02.2023 by dismissing the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.
4. The appellant contends that the documents reflected in his representation before the registration authorities were registered fraudulently and therefore, they ought to be cancelled. According to the appellant, the signatures of the executants were forged for registering the documents.
5. Section 77-A of the Registration Act which was earlier in force was held to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Kathirvel and others vs. The Inspector General of Registration and others reported in CDJ 2024 MHC 5265. In the said decision, it has been categorically held that the registration authorities do not have the power to cancel registered documents and therefore, the Division Bench has held that Section 77-A of the Registration Act, which enables the registration department to cancel registered documents as unconstitutional. The law laid down by the Division Bench in Kathirvel’s case, referred to supra, still holds good.
6. The representation given by the appellant seeking for cancellation of the registered documents is only based on Section 77-A of the Registration Act, which was earlier available under the Registration Act, which is now held to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court, as referred to supra. The respondents have rightly rejected the appellant’s representation seeking for cancellation of the registered documents by rightly holding that they do not have the power to cancel the registered documents.
7. The learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed in W.P. No.17941 of 2023 has also rightly dismissed the writ petition by directing the appellant to approach the civil court for the purpose of establishing his title and only thereafter, if he succeeds in the civil suit permitted the appellant to approach the competent authorities for cancellation of the registered documents.
8. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge as rightly the learned Single Judge has held that in the instant case, the authorities do not have the power to cancel the registered documents and the only remedy available to the appellant is to approach the civil court to redress his grievance with regard to the request for cancellation of the registered documents which were the subject matter of the writ petition.
9. Since there is no merit in this writ appeal, this writ appeal is dismissed by directing the appellant to approach the civil court to redress his grievance with regard to the cancellation of the registered documents, which were the subject matter of the writ petition and this writ appeal.
10. The Civil Court i.e. the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S. No.27 of 2026 as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
|
| |
