Madras High Court sets aside property sale; declares controversial 1.35-acre Palani deed “null and void”

Chennai : The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday allowed an appeal filed by the Arulmigu Dhandapani Swamigal Madam (Mutt), Palani. The court explicitly declared as “null and void” a highly controversial sale deed executed in favour of certain individuals in respect of 1.35 acres of land located in Palani, Dindigul district.
A Division Bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel overturned a previous Single Bench order. That lower order had directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed if the document was otherwise found to be in order.
Upon reviewing the case, the Division Bench observed a critical flaw in the initial proceedings: the appellant Mutt had not been impleaded as a party before the Single Bench, and the Sub-Registrar had failed to consider the objections raised by the Mutt before rushing to register the document.
In its appeal, the Mutt strongly contested the original ruling, contending that the Single Bench order was contrary to law as well as the facts of the case and, therefore, warranted interference. The institution further argued that the writ petition ought not to have been allowed at the admission stage without affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties.
According to the Mutts’ legal submissions, the entire process was systematically designed to bypass their oversight. The Mutt contended that the writ petition seeking registration of property belonging to it had been filed without impleading the appellant as a necessary party, rendering the proceedings improper and illegal.
It further submitted that the sale deed had been executed as though the property belonged to a private trust, whereas it was the property of the Mutt. The writ petition had been allowed behind the appellant’s back, the Mutt alleged.
Furthermore, the Mutt argued that the Single Bench had failed to take note of the petitioner’s suppression of the fact that possession of the property was actually with the Thakkar. Allowing the registration to stand despite these heavy discrepancies would only serve to give rise to unnecessary complications and disputes.
The High Court’s ruling has triggered swift disciplinary action within the state’s Registration Department.
Justin Manikandan Subramanian, the Sub-Registrar (in-charge) who originally registered the disputed document, has since been placed under suspension. In an effort to avoid arrest, Subramanian moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. In his plea, he defended his actions, submitting that the registration had been carried out in compliance with the order passed by the High Court.
The repercussions have moved higher up the administrative ladder as well. The Registration Department has also placed District Registrar Sasikala under suspension.
As the state moves to investigate potential collusion or fraud, the matter has been handed over to specialised investigators. Justice K. Rajasekar directed the Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CB-CID) to file its response regarding the situation and officially adjourned the hearing to July 17.