D. Dhamodharan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

D. Dhamodharan vs The Inspector General of Registration

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 29, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1413330

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/1413330
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Jan 29, 2026
Case Number: WP/1070/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D. Dhamodharan

Respondent

The Inspector General of Registration

Excerpt

.....15.12.2025 submitted before the first respondent for conducting enquiry on fraudulent registration of sale deed document no.7634/2025 on the file of the first respondent i.e., the joint i sub registrar office of saidapet, south chennai registration district dated 10.06.2025.for petitioner : mr.s.najimudeen for respondents : mr.s.jayachandran, government advocate for r1 and r2orderthe petitioner seeks consideration of representation dated 15.12.2025 for conducting an enquiry in relation to the allegedly fraudulent registration of sale deed bearing document no.7634 of2025. in the affidavit, the petitioner states that the mother ofrespondents 3 to 6 had approached him and taken a loan from him. it is stated that original parent document of settlement deed bearing document no.4925 of 2013 dated 20.05.2013 was given as collateral security. in these circumstances, without repaying the debt of rs.25 lakhs, it is stated that the sale deed bearing document no.7364 of 2025 was executed in favour of the seventh respondent herein.2. mr.s.jayachandran, learned government advocate, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit was filed for recovery of money. if so, the petitioner should seek relief in respect of the property allegedly provided as security in the said suit.4. the writ petition is completely misconceived. thepetitioner’s grievance appears to be non-repayment of loan by the borrower. if so, a suit for recovery of debt may be filed. in case, a mortgage had been created as security, the petitioner has the option of seeking to enforce such mortgage or charge. on that basis, the petitioner cannot seek cancellation of sale deed. therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.index:yes/no neutral citation: yes/no mmi tosenthilkumar ramamoorthy,j.mmi

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY D.Dhamodharan .. Petitioner vs 3.Sathiyaraj 4.Soundarya 5.Sumithra 6.Minor Arjun rep. By Natural Guardian/mother Uma 7.K.Nagarajan .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 15.12.2025 submitted before the first respondent for conducting enquiry on fraudulent registration of sale deed Document No.7634/2025 on the file of the first respondent i.e., the Joint I Sub Registrar Office of Saidapet, South Chennai Registration District dated 10.06.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Najimudeen For Respondents : Mr.S.Jayachandran, Government Advocate for R1 and R2

ORDER

The petitioner seeks consideration of representation dated 15.12.2025 for conducting an enquiry in relation to the allegedly fraudulent registration of sale deed bearing Document No.7634 of

2025. In the affidavit, the petitioner states that the mother of

respondents 3 to 6 had approached him and taken a loan from him. It is stated that original parent document of settlement deed bearing Document No.4925 of 2013 dated 20.05.2013 was given as collateral security. In these circumstances, without repaying the debt of Rs.25 lakhs, it is stated that the sale deed bearing Document No.7364 of 2025 was executed in favour of the seventh respondent herein.

2. Mr.S.Jayachandran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit was filed for recovery of money. If so, the petitioner should seek relief in respect of the property allegedly provided as security in the said suit.

4. The writ petition is completely misconceived. The

petitioner’s grievance appears to be non-repayment of loan by the borrower. If so, a suit for recovery of debt may be filed. In case, a mortgage had been created as security, the petitioner has the option of seeking to enforce such mortgage or charge. On that basis, the petitioner cannot seek cancellation of sale deed. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mmi To

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties D. Dhamodharan vs The Inspector General of Registration Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy