(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act 1908 on the document registered on 05.06.2026 under Document No. 3832/2026 in Survey Nos.154/10, 154/25 and 154/9 by the sixth respondent before the fourth respondent and direct him to pass orders on petitioner's complaint dated 13.06.2026.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, in respect of the document registered on 05.06.2026 as Document No.3832 of 2026 relating to Survey Nos.154/10, 154/25 and 154/9, presented by the sixth respondent before the fourth respondent, and to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's complaint dated 13.06.2026.

2. This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission, after dispensing with the notice on the sixth and seventh respondents, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against them.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has inherited the property measuring an extent of 60 cents in old Survey No.154/3C (presently Survey Nos.154/9, 154/10 and 154/25). The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's paternal uncle, late K.R.Venkatraman, died intestate on 23.02.1991, pursuant to which the petitioner's mother, namely, Seetha Narasimhan, inherited the property. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner's mother died on 16.05.2018 and the petitioner's father died on 07.02.2017.

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's paternal uncle, late K.R.Venkatraman, was earlier the owner of 3.17 acres of land in old Survey No.154/3. It is further submitted that from the aforesaid extent of 3.17 acres, the said paternal uncle of the petitioner sold an extent of 1.25 acres of land to one Muthammal @ Maariammal on 21.02.1963 and also exchanged 50 cents of land with one Pushpam vide Document No.7474 of 1964 dated 07.11.1964.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the extent of 50 cents which was exchanged with the said Pushpam vide the aforesaid document and the extent of 1.25 acres, which was sold earlier by the paternal uncle of the petitioner, were situated separately and had different boundaries. Thus, the balance extent was 1.42 acres [3.17 Acres – 1.25 Acres – 50 Cents].

6. It is further submitted that the said Pushpam later sold 50 cents from the exchanged portion to one Muthammal @ Maariammal by a Sale Deed dated 02.05.1966 registered as Document No.2856 of 1966. Thus, out of 3.17 acres of land, the said Muthammal @ Maariammal became the owner of 1.75 acres [1.25 Acres + 50 Cents], leaving 1.42 acres in the hands of the petitioner's paternal uncle, late K.R.Venkatraman.

7. It is submitted that over a period of time, the petitioner's paternal uncle, late K.R.Venkatraman, also sold certain extents independently while retaining 60 cents out of the balance extent of 1.42 acres of land.

8. It is submitted that the said Muthammal @ Maariammal's daughter, namely, Rathinammal, filed O.S.No.426 of 1982 before the Additional Sub Court, Madurai, seeking partition of 1.75 acres of land in Survey No.154/3. It is submitted that while filing the above suit, the plaintiff therein, namely, Rathinammal, had given the boundaries of the extent of 1.25 acres and 50 cents sold and exchanged respectively as abutting each other and that the said Rathinammal later sold her share to the sixth respondent, who settled the same in favour of the seventh respondent by a Settlement Deed dated 05.06.2026.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the patta was wrongly issued in the names of several persons and therefore, proceedings should be initiated against the sixth and seventh respondents under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908.

10. Although the facts have been narrated at length, based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the matter would require a detailed consideration. It appears that after the sixth respondent secured an order from this Court on 29.04.2026 in W.P.(MD) No.13236 of 2026, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 13.06.2026 with the first, second and third respondents herein to initiate proceedings against the sixth and seventh respondents. It appears that the Settlement Deed was subsequently registered as Document No. 3832 of 2026 dated 05.06.2026. The case of the petitioner is that the private respondents have furnished false information and got the said Settlement Deed dated 05.06.2026 registered as Document No.3832 of 2026.

11. The learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu, appearing for the official respondents, at this stage, submits that the petitioner's complaint dated 13.06.2026 will be considered, based on the available records and appropriate steps will be taken.

12. Recording the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to act on the petitioner's complaint dated 13.06.2026 and take suitable action in this regard. If the first respondent is satisfied that a case is made out for invoking the machinery under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, appropriate proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with law. It is made clear that no adverse decision shall be taken or order passed against the private respondents under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, without issuing proper notice to them. The official respondents are directed to ensure that no further alienation or encumbrance is created over the property pending the enquiry under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908.

13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.