Madras High Court
U.Velmurugan vs N.Uthappan on 25 May, 2022
CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 25.05.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022
and CMP.Nos.8888 and 8890 of 2022
U.Velmurugan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.N.Uthappan
2.U.Nagaraj
3.K.Seethalakshmi ...Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the returns dated 08.04.2022 and
21.04.2022, insisting on the plaintiff to add the Sub-Registrar and the
State as party defendants and comply with Sec.80 CPC notice and further
direct the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee at Tiruvallur to number the
plaint vide OS.SR.No.2413 of 2022 if the same is otherwise in order,
expeditiously and in accordance with law by allowing the above Civil
Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/ 6
CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set
aside the returns dated 08.04.2022 and 21.04.2022 by the District
Munsif Court, Poonamallee, insisting the petitioner to implead the Sub-
Registrar and the State as party defendants in this suit and to comply
with Sec.80 CPC. The returns were based on the decision of this Court in
Saranya Vs. Sub-Registrar (S.A.(MD).No.306 of 2020 dated
27.08.2020). As per the aforesaid decision, a Sub-Registrar or a Registrar
constituted under the Registration Act, 1908, who are mere public offices
under the Government.
3. A reading of the above judgment seems to indicate that the
the suit was rejected on the ground that under Section 73 of the
Registration Act in cases where the Sub-Registrar has refused the
registration, an appeal before the Registrar can be filed within 30 days
and under Section 77 of the Registration Act, in such cases where the
Registrar has refused registration of the documents, the aggrieved party
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/ 6
CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022
should institute a Civil Suit before the appropriate Forum within 30 days
and implead the Sub-Registrar and the Government.
4. On perusal of the records it indicates that the petitioner
herein has challenged the settlement deed dated 13.05.2020 executed by
the first respondent (father of the petitioner) in favour of the second
respondent (brother of the petitioner), who in turn appears to have sold a
portion of the land, settled under the settlement deed dated 13.05.2020 to
the third respondent on 30.11.2020. The decision of this Court in
Saranya Vs. Sub-Registrar (S.A.(MD).No.306 of 2020 prima facie
does not apply to the facts of this case.
5. Considering the same, I direct the learned District Munsif
Court, Poonamallee to number the suit filed by the petitioner in
O.S.SR.No.2413 of 2022 and proceed accordingly. Needless to state that
even if the suit is numbered, the private respondents are at liberty to raise
all possible defence including the issue relating to mis-joinder or
non-joinder of necessary parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/ 6
CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022
6. This Civil Revision Petition stands thus allowed as prayed
for with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.05.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
pvs/dna
Note: The Registry is directed to return the original
plaint, which was filed along with the typed set of papers,
to the learned counsel for the petitioner for
re-presentation before the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/ 6
CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022
To
The District Munsif Court,
Poonamallee at Tiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/ 6
CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022
C.SARAVANAN.J.
pvs/dna
CRP (PD).No.1767 of 2022
25.05.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/ 6
