A. Mahendraselvan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Others

A. Mahendraselvan vs The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Nov 20, 2015

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1178549

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1178549
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: K. Ravichandrabaabu
Decided On: Nov 20, 2015
Case Number: Writ Petition (MD) No. 20572 of 2015
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Mahendraselvan

Respondent

The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

.....and 2741 of 2000 in respect of the property comprised in door no.98, south masi street, madurai.) 1. this writ petitionis filed aggrieved against the order of the second respondentwhereby the petitioner's request for registration of certain documents, namely, the trust deed, was rejected. against the order passed by the second respondent, an appeal lies to the inspector general of registration, chennai, and therefore, when such statutory appeal is available to the petitioner, filing of the present writ petition cannot be entertained, at this stage. needless to state that when the appellate authority is also the fact finding authority, the petitioner has to exhaust such alternative remedy of appeal so that the factual aspects of the matter can be gone into by the competent appellate authority constituted under the statute. 2. therefore,this writ petition is dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the inspector general of registration, chennai. it is made clear that this court is not expressing any view on the merits and contentions of the petitioner while dismissing this writ petition as it is for the appellate authority to consider those merits and contentions, if the petitioner choose to file an appeal before such authority. as the appeal time is 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the second respondent, the petitioner is given liberty to file such appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondentdated 3.11.2015 in proceedings Mu.Mu.No.5824/B2/15, quash the same, as the same is arbitrary, ultra vires, contrary to the powers conferred under the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 passed by the first respondentand consequently direct the second respondentto cancel the documents dated 30.10.2000 bearing document Nos.2040/2000 and 2741 of 2000 in respect of the property comprised in door No.98, South Masi Street, Madurai.)

1. This Writ Petitionis filed aggrieved against the order of the second respondentwhereby the petitioner's request for registration of certain documents, namely, the Trust Deed, was rejected. Against the order passed by the second respondent, an appeal lies to the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, and therefore, when such statutory appeal is available to the petitioner, filing of the present Writ Petition cannot be entertained, at this stage. Needless to state that when the appellate authority is also the fact finding authority, the petitioner has to exhaust such alternative remedy of appeal so that the factual aspects of the matter can be gone into by the competent appellate authority constituted under the statute.

2. Therefore,this Writ Petition is dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on the merits and contentions of the petitioner while dismissing this Writ Petition as it is for the appellate authority to consider those merits and contentions, if the petitioner choose to file an appeal before such authority. As the appeal time is 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the second respondent, the petitioner is given liberty to file such appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2015 Same Parties A. Mahendraselvan vs The Inspector General of Registration, C... Same Subject Education Same Judge K. Ravichandrabaabu