Madras High Court
P.Chinnathambi vs The Sub Registrar on 30 March, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.741 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.741 of 2020
P.Chinnathambi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Illupuur, Illuppur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
2.The Joint Receivers,
Kalaimagal Saba,
No.17, Old No.48,
North Ushman Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the first respondent in R.FL.Illuppur No.56/2019 dated
13.12.2019 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently
direct the first respondent to register the sale deed executed by the
petitioner on 13.12.2019 and presented for registration on 13.12.2019 in
respect of in S.F.No.226/3 with an extent of 1 acre 21 cents of Kattakudi
Village, Illuppur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.741 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Paranjothi
For R1 : Mr.M.Prakash
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following relief:
“For the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the first
respondent in R.FL.Illuppur No.56/2019 dated
13.12.2019 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal
and consequently direct the first respondent to register
the sale deed executed by the petitioner on 13.12.2019
and presented for registration on 13.12.2019 in respect
of in S.F.No.226/3 with an extent of 1 acre 21 cents of
Kattakudi Village, Illuppur Taluk, Pudukkottai
District.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that an extent of 1 acre and 28
cents comprised in S.F.No.226/3 of Kattakudi Village, Illuppur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District originally belonged to one Pappammal. Pappammal
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.741 of 2020
was enjoying the same with absolute right and died in the year 1997
leaving behind surviving her daughter viz., Jeya as a only legal heir. The
said Jeya along with her husband Narayanan had executed a registered
sale deed in respect of S.F.Nos.226/1 and 226/3 in favour of the
petitioner under a sale deed dated 10.03.2005 and the petitioner has been
put in possession of the same. It appears that the second respondent had
attempted to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the property
constraining him to file a suit in O.S.No.94 of 2006 against the General
Manager, Kalaimagal Saba and other persons including the Special
Officer of the Kalaimagal Saba. By judgment and decree dated
30.01.2008, the District Munsif Court, Keeranur had declared the
petitioner's title to the property and also granted an injunction.
3. While so, the petitioner had decided to sell the property
comprised in S.F.No.226/3 for his family expenses and he and the
purchaser Kathamuthu entered into a registered sale deed dated
13.12.2019. When the purchaser had presented the paper for registration
on 13.12.2019, the first respondent declined to register the same stating
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.741 of 2020
that No Objection had to be obtained from the second respondent in view
of the order in W.P.(MD) No.514 of 1999 and also as per the order of the
Inspector General of Registration. Challenging the same, the petitioner
is before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
5. The facts would show that the petitioner herein had filed a suit
against the second respondent (who was the fourth defendant) for
declaration of his title and for injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
Despite protection of this decree, the first respondent has demanded the
issue of No Objection Certificate on the basis of the proceedings in
W.P.(MD) No.514 of 1999.
6. The petitioner has provided the decree of the civil Court which
has been passed after notice had been served on the said Kalaimagal
Saba, who chose to remain exparte and although the decree had been
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.741 of 2020
passed in the year 2008, no steps whatsoever had been taken to have the
same set aside. Thus, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition.
7. It is also informed that the purchaser is no more. Therefore,
while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned order, the
petitioner is directed to execute a fresh sale deed in favour of the legal
heirs of the deceased purchaser and on such execution, the same shall be
presented before the first respondent, who shall register the same within
a period of three weeks from the date on which it was presented. If
however in the interregnum, any documents are produced to show the
title of Kalaimagal Saba to the property, then the Registering Officer
while refusing to register the same shall pass a speaking order giving
details of the document based upon which decision has been taken. No
costs.
30.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
abr
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.741 of 2020
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
To
The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Illupuur, Illuppur Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
W.P.(MD) No.741 of 2020
Dated: 30.03.2023
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
