Madras High Court
S.Paulraj vs The Inspector General Of ... on 18 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
S.Paulraj v. The Inspector General of Registration
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 18.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
S.Paulraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration
Inspector General of Registration Office,
Santhome,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office
Sivagangai
Sivagangai District
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Manamadurai
Sivagangai District.
4.A.Ramachandran
5.Gurumoorthy
6.P.S.R.Kumar
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
S.Paulraj v. The Inspector General of Registration
7.K.Murugan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to
register any document in survey No.267/3, 267/5 in Sub Registrar Office,
Manamadurai, Sivagangai District without the knowledge of the petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.J.Senthilkumar
For Respondent :Mr.S.Shanmugavel for R1 to R3
Government Advocate (civil)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus
directing the third respondent to consider the objections made by the
petitioner and not to register any document pertaining to the subject property
without conducting an enquiry based on the objections made by the
petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 7 entered into an
agreement of sale and agreed to sell the subject property. The further case of
the petitioner is that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
S.Paulraj v. The Inspector General of Registration
also ready to pay the remaining amount as per the agreement. However, the
respondents 4 to 7 did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 4 to 7 are now demanding
a higher sum and they are trying to sell the property to third parties. It is
also seen from the records that there was exchange of notices between the
parties.
3. The petitioner had given objections before the third respondent to
the effect that no documents should be registered pertaining to the subject
property without hearing the objections of the petitioner. Since the same did
not evoke any response, the present writ petition has been filed before this
Court seeking for appropriate directions.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Civil) for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
S.Paulraj v. The Inspector General of Registration
5. In the considered view of this Court, the issue that has been raised
in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the
Division bench of this Court in N.Ramayee v. Sub Registrar, Registration
Department, Salem District and others reported in 2020 (5) LW 385. This
Court, after analyzing all the earlier judgments, held that the mere fact that
the owner has entered into an agreement of sale by itself will not be a bar for
the owner of the property to deal with his property and the registration
department cannot deny registration only on the ground that the owner has
entered into a sale agreement.
6. In the present case, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the attitude of
the respondents 4 to 7, it will be more appropriate for the petitioner to
approach the competent civil Court and file a suit for specific performance.
The petitioner can also file an application in the said suit and seek for a
restraint order in order to prevent any third party rights being created by
those respondents. Instead a writ petition has been filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
S.Paulraj v. The Inspector General of Registration
7. In the considered view of this Court, no useful purpose will be
served in directing the third respondent to consider the objections made by
the petitioner and the same will tantamount to preventing the statutory
authorities from performing his statutory functions. Since the petitioner has
an efficacious alternative remedy to work out his grievance, this Court is not
inclined to entertain this writ petition.
8. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to
the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent civil Court. No
costs.
18.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
S.Paulraj v. The Inspector General of Registration
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration
Inspector General of Registration Office,
Santhome,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office
Sivagangai
Sivagangai District
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Manamadurai
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
S.Paulraj v. The Inspector General of Registration
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P.(MD)No.10265 of 2021
18.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
