S.SURESH Kumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Suresh Kumar vs The Inspector General of Registration

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 27, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1422641

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/1422641
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Feb 27, 2026
Case Number: WP/6126/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.Suresh Kumar

Respondent

The Inspector General of Registration

Excerpt

.....of deposit of title deeds.page2 of 52. mr.p.harish, learned government advocate, accepts notice for both therespondents. he submits that the petitioners’ request for correction of entries is under consideration by the district registrar and that orders would be issued within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.3. in view of the above submissions of learned government advocate, thedistrict registrar is suo-motu added as the third respondent in this writ petition. the registry is directed to carry out the amendments in the writ petition before the order is issued.4. the petitioner has placed on record sale deed dated 18.11.2017 bearingdocument no.6969 of 2017 under which the petitioners purchased the property. also on record is the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 22.01.2018 bearing document no.358 of 2018. instead of reflecting the memorandum of deposit of title deeds, which is merely evidence of creation of a mortgage, it appears that the document has been reflected as a conveyance in the encumbrance certificate. this would undoubtedly prejudice the petitioner in as much as a mortgage may be discharged by repaying the amount due to the lender, whereas a conveyance entry cannot be effaced. the petitioners have also raised a grievance with regard to errors pertaining to the boundary. if such errors have been committed by the registering officer notwithstanding the correct boundaries being reflected in the memorandum of deposit of title deeds, the same would also be liable to be corrected. page3 of 55. subject to the observations set out above, this writ petition is disposed ofby directing the third respondent to consider the petitioners’ request for correction in the entries and to take necessary measures relating thereto within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. no costs. consequently, the concerned writ miscellaneous petition is closed. 27-02-2026 index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P.No.6627 of 2026
1. S.Suresh Kumar Flat No.B-305, Navins whiteberry Apartments, Chennai- 600 060.
2. S.Rajeswari Flat No.B- 305, Navins Whiteberry Apartments, Chennai-060. ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.
2. The Sub- Registrar Madhavaram Sub Registrar Office, Chennai-600 060.
3. The District Registrar Chennai North No.1, Moorthikal Lane, 1st Lane Beach, Chennai 600 001. ..Respondent(s) (R3 impleaded vide order dated 27.02.2026 in W.P.No.6126 of 2026 by SKRJ) Page1 of 5
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents especially the 2nd respondent herein, to correct the index entry in respect of Document No.358 of 2018 dated 22.01.2018 as Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds
(MOD) instead of Conveyance Metro /UA and to rectify the incorrect and Jumbled boundary entries relating to the said document in the Sub- Registrar Office records and the Encumbrance certificate. For Petitioner(s): Ms.Shunmugapriya K For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioners assert that they are the owners of the properties described in the schedules to the writ petition. As security for a loan availed of from the State Bank of India, it is stated that memorandum of deposit of title deeds was registered under Document No.358 of 2018 on 22.01.2018. The grievance of the petitioners is that a clerical and indexing error was committed by the registering officer by making an entry in the encumbrance certificate that a deed of conveyance was registered instead of recording it as a memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

Page2 of 5

2. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for both the

respondents. He submits that the petitioners’ request for correction of entries is under consideration by the District Registrar and that orders would be issued within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3. In view of the above submissions of learned Government Advocate, the

District Registrar is suo-motu added as the third respondent in this writ petition. The Registry is directed to carry out the amendments in the writ petition before the order is issued.

4. The petitioner has placed on record sale deed dated 18.11.2017 bearing

Document No.6969 of 2017 under which the petitioners purchased the property. Also on record is the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 22.01.2018 bearing Document No.358 of 2018. Instead of reflecting the memorandum of deposit of title deeds, which is merely evidence of creation of a mortgage, it appears that the document has been reflected as a conveyance in the encumbrance certificate. This would undoubtedly prejudice the petitioner in as much as a mortgage may be discharged by repaying the amount due to the lender, whereas a conveyance entry cannot be effaced. The petitioners have also raised a grievance with regard to errors pertaining to the boundary. If such errors have been committed by the registering officer notwithstanding the correct boundaries being reflected in the memorandum of deposit of title deeds, the same would also be liable to be corrected. Page3 of 5

5. Subject to the observations set out above, this writ petition is disposed of

by directing the third respondent to consider the petitioners’ request for correction in the entries and to take necessary measures relating thereto within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the concerned writ miscellaneous petition is closed. 27-02-2026 Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No RNA To

1. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.

2. The Sub- Registrar Madhavaram Sub Registrar Office, Chennai-600 060.

3. The District Registrar Chennai North No.1, Moorthikal Lane, 1st Lane Beach, Chennai 600 001. Page4 of 5

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA and W.M.P.No.6627 of 2026 27-02-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties S.Suresh Kumar vs The Inspector General of Registration Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy