Madras High Court
Vellaichamy vs The Sub-Registrar on 4 April, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.9323 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.9323 of 2025
Vellaichamy ... Petitioner
Vs
The Sub-Registrar,
Office of Sub Registrar,
Kulithalai,
Karur District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned Refusal Slip in Refusal Number.
RFL/Kulithalai/1/2025, dated 02.01.2025, issued by the respondent, and
quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the
respondent to register the sale deed, dated 02.01.2025, presented by the
petitioner for registration.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader.
____________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:02:43 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.9323 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for the following relief :
''Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned Refusal Slip in Refusal Number.RFL/Kulithalai/1/2025,
dated 02.01.2025, issued by the respondent, and quash the same as illegal
and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed,
dated 02.01.2025, presented by the petitioner for registration.''
2. There exists an order of attachment, passed by the learned
District Munsif at Kulithalai. Referring to the said attachment, the respondent
issued Refusal Check Slip.
3. In terms of Section 22-B (3) of the Registration Act, the Sub-
Registrar is duty bound to take note of attachment orders passed by a
competent authority under the State or the Central law, or by a Court or
Tribunal. The section brooks no exception.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property in
the year 1991 and alienated the same in the year 2025. At the time of
alienation, the Sub-Registrar, taking note of Section 22-B (3) of the
Registration Act, refused to register the document, pointing out an entry of
attachment order pursuant to an order in O.S.No.19 of 1996 and E.P.No.33 of
1996, on the file of District Munsif Court, Kulithalai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:02:43 pm )
5. Mr.Pon Karthikeyan, for the petitioner, urges that title had
vested with the petitioner as early the year 1991 and, therefore, the order of
attachment passed in 1996 cannot bind the petitioner. He is absolutely right
in his submission, but he is before the wrong forum.
6. The order of attachment was passed by learned District Munsif
and it may be raised only by the learned District Munsif. This Court, in the
exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot
indirectly set aside the order of attachment, even if the facts involved make
out a case for raising the attachment. A party, who is aggrieved by an order of
attachment, is entitled to proceed under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. A proceeding under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to adjudicate a claim, is to be tried as a suit. The decree holder,
the judgment debtor as well as the claim petitioner will be given an
opportunity to let in evidence. Even though this Court retains the power to
record evidence, I do not find it appropriate to convert a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution into one of claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of
C.P.C.
7. I am not in a position to quash the impugned refusal check
slip, since the Sub-Registrar has merely taken note of the attachment and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:02:43 pm )
issued a consequent order. The Sub-Registrar is duty bound to take note of
the attachment, as stated above.
8. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is
dismissed. The cause of action for the petitioner to a claim petition has arisen
only in January,2025, when he presented the sale deed for registration.
Therefore, the petitioner shall file an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of
C.P.C., on or before 30.06.2025. In case he files the application within the
time fixed by this Court, the bar under Order 21 Rule 58 (1) (b) of C.P.C. will
not operate against the petitioner. No costs.
04.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dixit
To:
The Sub-Registrar,
Office og Sub Registrar,
Kulithalai,
Karur District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:02:43 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
dixit
04.04.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2025 05:02:43 pm )
