Madras High Court
Y.G.Srinivasan vs The Sub Registrar on 24 April, 2023
W.P.No.12284 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.12284 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.12123 of 2023
Y.G.Srinivasan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Purasawalkam,
Chennai – 600 007.
2.Nachiappan. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from registering
any deed of sale in respect of Plot No.21 and 34, Golden Complex, 1 st
Sector, Mahakavi bharathi Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai- 600 039 in Survey
No.715 /1 part Permbur Village, Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai District
pursuant to petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Appavu
For R1 : Mr.S.Ravichandran
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.12284 of 2023
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the 1st
respondent from registering any deed of sale in respect of Plot No.21 and
34, Golden Complex, 1st Sector, Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar, Vyasarpadi,
Chennai- 600 039 in Survey No.715 /1 part Permbur Village, Purasawalkam
Taluk, Chennai District pursuant to the representation submitted by the
petitioner on 06.03.2023.
2. The petitioner states that he is a retired employee from Southern
railway. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board allotted Plot No.21 to
Mr.J.D.Jayakumar on 19.01.1988.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent/Mr.Nachiappan on
21.02.2007 for the purchase of two plots from the 2nd respondent.
4. Admittedly, there is a dispute exists and a Civil Suit was filed by
the 2nd respondent/Mr.Nachiappan in O.S.No.1714 of 2010. The petitioner
also filed a Civil Suit for injunction in O.S.No.1393 of 2010. On receipt of
the summons, the 2nd respondent / Mr.Nachiappan filed a Suit for Recovery
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12284 of 2023
of Possession and damages of Rs.80,000/- in O.S.No.1714 of 2010. By a
common judgment dated 11.04.2014, the suit for injunction filed by the writ
petitioner was dismissed and the suit filed by the 2 nd respondent for recovery
of possession and damages was partially decreed. The petitioner preferred
an appeal against the partial decree and the stay was granted. The Execution
Petition in E.P.No.1250 of 2015 was filed and with the help of police, the
possession was taken by the 2nd respondent/Mr.Nachiappan on 07.05.2015.
5. After taking possession, the 2nd respondent is now attempting to
sell the property to some third party. Under those circumstances, the
petitioner submitted an application to the 1st respondent / Sub-Registrar,
Purasawalkam, not to register deed of sale. Since the application was not
taken into consideration, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ
petition.
6. Admittedly, a Civil Suit instituted by the petitioner for injunction
was dismissed. The suit filed by the 2nd respondent was partially decreed.
The second respondent by filing Execution Petition, had taken possession of
the subject property. Under those circumstances, the petitioner, instead of
further agitating the matter through the competent Civil Court of law, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12284 of 2023
chosen to file this writ petition by merely sending a representation to the 1st
respondent / Sub-Registrar.
7. What the petitioner wanted could not be done, now he is attempting
to prevent the 2nd respondent from selling his properties by filing an
application to the 1st respondent and such a modus adopted by the petitioner
at no circumstances be appreciated by the Courts. The trend of approaching
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to resolve the
civil disputes cannot be entertained. All such civil disputes are to be
resolved through the competent Civil Court of Law by way of complete
adjudication based on the documents and evidences including the oral
evidences. Such nature of writ petitions filed in order to prevent the onus of
the property by sending a representation and filing a writ petition cannot be
entertained and by directing the authorities to consider the representation,
the petitioner will be back again to the Court. Such a direction would do no
service to the cause of justice.
8. The parties have to approach the competent Courts for the purpose
of resolving the issues and such tactical approach by filing a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12284 of 2023
9. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and
more so, the private disputes in respect of the immovable property cannot be
dealt with by the High Court in a writ proceedings.
10. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.04.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
kak
To
1.The Sub Registrar,
Purasawalkam,
Chennai – 600 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12284 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.12284 of 2023
24.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
