Madras High Court
V.Ravi vs The Sub Registrar on 3 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.3690 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.3690 of 2025
V.Ravi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Bodinayakkanur,
Theni District.
2.Vasuki ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned check slip in
ref.No.RFL/Bodinayakkanur/70/2024 dated 10.12.2024 issued by
the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and
unconstitutional and consequently direct the first respondent to
register the sale deed dated 11.01.2021 presented by the petitioner for
registration and release the same to the petitioner within the time
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arun
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate (for R1)
Mr.P.Ranjith Raja (for R2)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:57:18 am )
W.P.(MD)No.3690 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner states that the property situated at S.No.530/3,
Sri Jayam Nagar, P.Ammapatty Village, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni
District, belongs to one Rathinakumari. The said Rathinakumari had
purchased the property from one S.R.Manickam on 05.04.2013.
Rathinakumari, thereafter, appointed the writ petitioner/ Ravi as her
power of attorney on 27.02.2024. The petitioner presented a
document of sale to the first respondent for registration.
1.1 At that time, it came to the petitioner's knowledge that the
second respondent had submitted an objection, stating that she had
purchased the property in S.No.600/1 of the very same village, with
similar boundaries. She claimed that she had purchased the property
from Ranjith Kumar and one Venkatesan in the year 2014. Alleging
that she had been cheated by her vendors, she claimed to have lodged
a complaint in Crime No.431 of 2015 with the Palanichittiyapatti
Police Station, Theni District. Considering the objection filed by the
second respondent, the first respondent issued a refusal check slip.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:57:18 am )
2. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.N.Ramesh
Arumugam, learned Government Advocate, took notice for the first
respondent and notice was ordered to the second respondent.
3. Mr.P.Ranjith Raja had entered appearance for the second
respondent.
4. I heard the respective counsels.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
contentions in the affidavit.
6. Mr.P.Ranjith Raja pleaded that the second respondent had
purchased the property in the year 2014 and if the registration of the
document presented by the writ petitioner is permitted, it will
adversely affect the rights of the second respondent. He pleads that
the second respondent is the owner of the property and therefore, no
sale deed must be registered at the instance of the writ petitioner or
any other person. Taking me through the impugned order, he
reiterated the contents thereof and supported the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:57:18 am )
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and
have gone through the records.
8. The issue is whether the first respondent is empowered to
decide whether the petitioner's principal is the owner of the property
or whether the second respondent is the owner. In terms of Rule 55 of
the Registration Rules, the first respondent is not entitled to go into
the issues of title. Furthermore, the mere fact that the registration of
the document presented by the writ petitioner might result in double
entry, does not give the first respondent the authority to reject the
registration. This issue has already been settled by a judgment of this
Court in the case of T.Senthilvel Vs., The District Registrar in
W.P(MD).No.22114 of 2024, dated 17.10.2024. The learned Judge
held that merely because there is a double entry in respect of the
subject property, registration cannot be refused.
9. Respectfully following the same view, the impugned order
passed by the first respondent in
ref.No.RFL/Bodinayakkanur/70/2024, dated 10.12.2024, is quashed.
There shall be a direction to the first respondent to register the sale
deed presented by the writ petitioner on behalf of his principal/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:57:18 am )
Rathinakumari.
10. Needless to add, mere registration of a document would not
confer any right on the purchaser, if the vendor has no title to the
property. The parties are always entitled to approach the
jurisdictional civil Court to work out their rights. It is for the civil
Court to decide whether Rathinakumari is the owner of the subject
property or whether Vasuki/ second respondent herein, is the owner
by virtue of her purchase from Venkatesan and Ranjith Kumar. The
registration of the document will not prevent the parties from agitating
their respective rights before the jurisdictional civil Court.
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is ordered. No
costs.
Index :Yes / No 03.04.2025
NCC :Yes / No (2/2)
Rmk
To
The Sub Registrar,
Bodinayakkanur,
Theni District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:57:18 am )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:57:18 am )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
03.04.2025
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 11:57:18 am )
