logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 4827 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P. (MD) No. 17771 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : A. Murugan Versus The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: C. Kannathasan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R. Parthiban, counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.
Date of Judgment : 30-06-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.06.2026 and consequently rectify the erroneous index entry pertaining to Book-I, Document No.6178/2024 registered on the file of the 4th Respondent and consequently effect necessary corrections in the online Encumbrance Certificate records.)

1. Heard Mr.C.Kannathasan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Parthiban learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission itself.

3. The petitioner a successful plaintiff in OS.No.14 of 2023, vide judgment dated 16.10.2024, is before this Court.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and decree, a sale deed was registered by the Court on 16.10.2024.

5. It is a case of the petitioner that the encumbrance certificate wrongly reflects the name of the executant as the petitioner and the name of the claimant as one Vijayalakshmi, who was the defendant in the said suit. It is submitted that the name should be altered as follows:-

                   “The name of the executant as 'Court' and the name of the claimant as 'the petitioner', A.Murugan.”

6. It is submitted that the petitioner has given a representation dated 02.06.2026 to the respondents. Despite the same, the respondents are refusing to alter the entries in the encumbrance certificate.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the ticket has been raised vide ticket No.13932444 and the same has been referred to TCS, who are the service providers.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that TCS has communicated to the petitioner that “as instructed by department, mentioned issue cannot be resolved through support request, please follow the administrative channel for resolution of this issue”. The TCS has been employed by the respondents and it is the responsibility of the respondents to issue necessary instructions to make suitable corrections in the encumbrance certificate to reflect the correct position, as far as the registration of the property is concerned.

9. Considering the same, I direct the respondents to issue necessary instruction to TCS to make suitable changes in the encumbrance certificate within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above direction. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal