Madras High Court
M.N.Sulthan Alawdeen vs The Sub Registrar on 4 September, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.28514 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.28514 of 2022
and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.22524 & 22525 of 2022
M.N.Sulthan Alawdeen ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar Illayankudi,
Illayankudi,
Sivaganga District.
2.M.N.Oli Mohamed .... Respondents
(R2 is impleaded vide Court order dated 01.02.2023
in W.M.P.(MD)No.1693/2023 in W.P.(MD)No.28514/22)
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent in his
proceedings in No.RFL/Ilayankudi/22/2022, dated 30.03.2022 and quash the same
as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondent to register the sale deed in
temporary No.TP/115541284/2022 dated 29.03.2022 presented on 30.03.2022
within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.28514 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikraja
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh,
Govt Advocate for R1
Mr.I.Romeo Roy Alfred for R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal
check slip issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in
No.RFL/Ilayankudi/22/2022, dated 30.03.2022 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the first respondent to register the sale deed in temporary
No.TP/115541284/2022 dated 29.03.2022 presented on 30.03.2022 within the
period that may be stipulated by this Court.
2. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that when the petitioner presented a
sale deed for registration, the first respondent refused to register the same on the
ground that a civil suit is pending. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed
this Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has undivided 2/9th share in the subject property and due to financial
crisis, the petitioner wants to sell the property. Hence, he executed a sale deed in
favour one Seeni Mohamed. When the said sale deed was presented for
registration, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that a civil suit in
O.S.No.201 of 2021, on the file of Subordinate Court, Manamadurai, which was
filed by the second respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, is pending.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that mere pendency of a
civil suit will not be a ground for refusing to register the sale deed. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is
stated that he has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.201 of 2021 and the same is
pending. The second respondent has also admitted that the petitioner is also
having 2/9th share in the subject property. According to him, the petitioner has not
appeared in the partition suit, which led to ex parte proceedings. Hence, opposed
this petition.
5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
6. This issue is no longer res integra. This Court already in several
judgments has held that mere pendency of a civil suit will not be a ground for
refusing to register the document. It is at the risk of the party to purchase the
property during the pendency of the suit. Such transfer is always subject to the
result of the suit. Therefore, mere pendency of a civil suit will not be a ground for
refusing to register the document. This issue has already been elaborately
discussed by this Court in Subramani Vs. 1.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the
SubRegistrar, Rasipuram. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai
[W.P.No.11056 of 2024, dated 26.04.2024].
7. Therefore, following the said decision, the impugned order passed by
the first respondent dated 30.03.2022 is set aside. Consequently, the first
respondent is directed to register the sale deed dated 29.03.2022 presented by the
petitioner on 30.03.2022, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.09.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
vsm
To
The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar Illayankudi,
Illayankudi,
Sivaganga District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
04.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
