Madras High Court
S.Muthusamy vs Mariyamuthu on 7 September, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.11085 of 2023
S.Muthusamy ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Mariyamuthu
2.The Sub Registrar
Thirumayam Sub Registrar Office
Pudukottai District ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 26.08.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.13316 of 2021, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Mohan for R1
Mr.D.Sachi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader for R2
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 26.08.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.13316 of 2021 filed by the
first respondent for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the
order dated 20.07.2021, passed by the Sub Registrar / second respondent
herein refusing to register the sale deed presented by him for registration.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this writ
appeal, are as follows:
2.1. The appellant admits that the property in
dispute originally belonged to one Ganesan. It is stated by the
appellant that the said Ganesan executed a power of attorney
in favour of one Sakthi. The appellant and one Solai appear to
have entered into a sale agreement with the said Ganesan,
through his power agent Sakthi, on 06.09.2017 and it was
registered as document No.1548 of 2017, on the file of the
second respondent – Sub Registrar.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
2.2. Learned counsel for the appellant now admits
that the said Ganesan, who executed the sale agreement in
favour of the appellant, is not the real owner and somebody
else is the owner of the property in dispute. According to the
appellant, the person, who executed the sale agreement with
him, is a person, who used the name of the real owner to take
money from the appellant.
2.3. It appears that the legal heirs of the real
owner of the property in dispute, by name, Ganesan, had filed
a suit for declaration of title and therefore, the appellant not
pressed for enforcement of the sale agreement, which he had
entered into with another Ganesan, who had no title to the
property.
2.4. Now, the appellant states that the person,
who executed the sale agreement, is no more and his legal
heirs have, without notice to anyone, executed another sale
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
deed in favour of the first respondent / a stranger. When the
first respondent presented the document before the Sub
Registrar / second respondent for registration, he refused to
register the document, on the ground that there was a prior
agreement of sale entered into with the appellant.
2.5. Challenging the said order passed by the Sub
Registrar, the first respondent filed W.P.(MD) No.13316 of
2021 and the learned Single Judge, by order dated
26.08.2022, following the Judgment of this Court in the case
of N.Ramayee vs. Sub Registrar, reported in 2020 (6) CTC
697, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant has filed the present writ appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the person, who
executed the sale agreement in favour of the appellant, is not the real owner
and the title to the property in dispute had already been decided in a suit filed
by the legal heirs of the real owner, whose name is also Ganesan. In such
circumstances, the appellant himself admits that the person, who executed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
the sale agreement in his favour, is not the real owner of the property.
Therefore, the appellant now admits that he has no subsisting right in the
property in respect of which he entered into the sale agreement with one
Ganesan. It is the case of the appellant that the person, who has now
executed a sale deed, has no right or title to the property, as the title to the
property has been decided against him and therefore, he cannot deal with the
property.
4. This Court is unable to accept the argument of the appellant on
two grounds. Firstly, the appellant has no right or title to the property and
therefore, he cannot be a person aggrieved by the subsequent transaction.
Secondly, the Sub Registrar has no power to decide one's title. Therefore, even
the real owner of the property cannot an raise issue about the registration of
document before the Sub Registrar as this Court has consistently held that
the power of the Sub Registrar is confined to identity of the parties and not to
decide the title. In other words, it is not within the domain of the Sub
Registrar to decide whether a person has title or not.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
5. The appellant, who alleges that he lost his very good money by
entering into a sale agreement, may approach the Civil Court for recovery of
money or for compensation from the legal heirs of the person, who executed
the sale agreement and received sale consideration.
6. With such liberty preserved to the appellant, this writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
07.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
The Sub Registrar,
Thirumayam Sub Registrar Office,
Pudukottai District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.1432 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.11085 of 2023
07.09.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
