Madras High Court
N.Palanisamy vs State Represented By on 27 July, 2021
W.P.No.29462 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P.No.29462 of 2019
and
W.M.P. Nos. 29308 & 29310 of 2019
N.Palanisamy,
S/o. Narayana Gounder ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State represented by
The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai-600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Negamam,
Coimbatore Dt.
3. A/m. Subramania Swamy Thirukoil,
represented by its Executive Officer,
Pollachi,
Coimbatore Dt.
4. L.N.Ganam,
W/o. V.Amirthalingam ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P.No.29462 of 2019
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the 2nd respondent in Check Slip No.24 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019
and to quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to
entertain and to register the instruments, such as Sale agreement, Sale deed
and any other instruments in respect of the lands comprised in the above old
S.No.98/A2, situated in Thirumalaiammal Nagar, Solanur Village, Pollachi
Taluk, Coimbatore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan,
Government Advocate for R1 & R2
Mrs. Meenal for R3
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
2nd respondent Sub-Registrar refusing to register the sale agreement on the
ground that the 3rd respondent temple has raised objections under Sec.22-A
of the Registration Act claiming title over the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29462 of 2019
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the 4th respondent is the
owner of property in Survey Nos. 1/1, 1/2A, 15A, 15B2 situated at
A.Sangampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk, and Survey No.98/A2 situated at
Solanur Village, Pollachi Taluk. Now, he has sold the property in favour of
petitioner and he has also executed a sale agreement, and he has presented
the same before the 2nd respondent Sub-Registrar for registration. The 2nd
respondent had refused to register the same on the ground that, the 3 rd
respondent claiming title over the property had filed objections. Now,
challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
3. Mr. M.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would
submit that, earlier, a ryotwari patta has been granted in favour of
predecessors of petitioner's vendor under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963. Thereafter, the 3rd
respondent temple filed a Suit claiming right over the property in O.S.No.
187 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Court, Udumalpet and that suit was
dismissed. Thereafter, further appeal has been filed in A.S.No. 153 of 1999
and finally, second appeal filed by the temple in S.A.No.2137 of 2001 was
also dismissed on 21.12.2001. Aggrieved over the judgment, the 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29462 of 2019
respondent temple had filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed on 18.07.2016. In the said
circumstances, the 3rd respondent temple cannot claim title over the property
and they cannot raise objections.
4. Mrs.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent would
fairly admit the above facts, and submitted that the temple has lost the suit,
ultimately, Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent and
perused the records.
6. Considering the above circumstances that, the tile claimed by the 3rd
respondent temple has been negatived by a competent civil court, which was
ultimately confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, now the 3rd respondent
cannot raise objections for registering the document in favour of petitioner.
Mr.M.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner also submitted
that, the petitioner has already challenged the similar order passed by the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29462 of 2019
respondent in respect of very same survey number by way of filing Writ
Petition before this Court and this Court has allowed the Writ Petition by an
order dated 08.01.2021 in W.P.Nos.41268 of 2016 and 7026 of 2017. In the
said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent Sub-
Registrar is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to register the
document presented by the petitioner if it is otherwise in order, and return
the original document to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition
stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
27.07.2021
rpp
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
State,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai-600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Negamam, Coimbatore Dt.
3. The Executive Officer,
A/m. Subramania Swamy Thirukoil,
Pollachi, Coimbatore Dt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.29462 of 2019
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
rpp
W.P.No.29462 of 2019
27.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
