Madras High Court
N.Shantha vs The Inspector General Of ... on 8 March, 2021
W.A.No.279 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.279 of 2021
N.Shantha ... Appellant
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Sub Registrar Office,
Keelpennathur Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District.
4.J.Rangasamy
5.R.Janarthanan ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
judgment dated 25.6.2019 made in W.P.No.17452 of 2019.
__________
Page 1 of 5
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.279 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajarajan
For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Spl. Government Pleader
for respondent Nos.1 to 3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appeal is directed against an order by which the writ
petition has been dismissed and the appellant has been permitted to
approach a Civil Court to establish the appellant's title to the
relevant property.
2. The appellant claims that the purpose of the writ petition
was not to seek a declaration as to title, but only to obtain an order
for the official respondents to institute appropriate proceedings
against the private respondents, for the private respondents having
resorted to slandering the appellant's title to an immovable
property.
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.279 of 2021
3. The appellant insists that the Writ Court erred, inasmuch as
the Writ Court failed to appreciate the scope of the writ petition.
The appellant says that all that she wants to do is for the registering
authorities to hold the private respondents accountable. For the
registering authorities to proceed against the private respondents, it
must first be established that the private respondents had done
anything which amounted to denying the title to an immovable
property of the rightful owner. Whether a challenge to the title is
appropriate or permissible depends on facts. In such a scenario, the
Single Bench cannot be faulted for having required the appellant to
obtain an appropriate declaratory relief from the Civil Court before
the official respondents could be permitted to proceed against the
private respondents.
4. As a consequence, the order of the Writ Court does not call
for any interference and it will be open to the appellant to take up
such offer or not, as may be convenient to her. What is made clear
is that without the appellant instituting a civil suit and obtaining a
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.279 of 2021
decree in such regard, the official respondents will not take any
action against the private respondents.
W.A.279 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
08.03.2021
Index : No
sasi
To:
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Sub Registrar Office,
Keelpennathur Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District.
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.279 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.279 of 2021
08.03.2021
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
