Madras High Court
N.Shanmugapriay vs The Registrar on 16 August, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD) No.19843 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.19843 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.14452 of 2022
N.Shanmugapriay ...Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Registrar,
Department of Registration,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Gujiliyamparai,
Dindigul District.
3.N.Manikandan
4.Aravindhan ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the order passed by the second respondent in S.No.48/2022 dated
30.06.2022 and quash the same as illegal consequently direct the second
respondent to conduct the enquiry and pass orders in accordance with
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19843 of 2022
law on the basis of the petitioner's petition dated 30.06.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thiruvarutselvan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order
passed by the second respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner
not to register any document with regard to the subject property.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that subject properties are
the ancestral properties of the petitioner's husband and the sons of the
petitioner have also right in the said property. Hence, the ancestral
properties of the petitioner's husband cannot be subjected to any sale
without the petitioner's son. In this regard, the petitioner made a
representation in form of objections before the respondents. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the second respondent rejected the same. Challenging the same, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The issued raised in this writ petition is no longer res-
integra, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Subramani vs. the Sub Registrar and others [WP.No.11056 of 2024, dated
26.04.2024], in which it has been held as follows:
“... b. refusal on the ground of title dispute, in a judgment of
this Court in the case of Abdullasa v Inspector General of
Registration reported in 2021 2 CWC 451, this Court held
that the Registrar cannot refuse to register the document on
the basis of objections raised by a rival claimant, who has a
different source of title. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., reported in
(2016) 10 SCC 767 has held that an enquiry into the title of
the executant is beyond the powers of the Sub-Registrar.
Therefore, in view of the law declared in this regard, merely
on the ground of protest petitions and objections raised by
some third party, the document cannot be refused to be
registered.”
5. In view of the above settled position of law, the order
rejecting the request of the petitioner not to register any document with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
regard to the subject property passed by the second respondent does not
warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition
dismissed. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the civil
Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ta
To
1.The Registrar,
Department of Registration,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Gujiliyamparai,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta
16.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
