Madras High Court
Krishnaveni vs N.Murugesan Nadar on 7 April, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.358 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.358 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)Nos.2975 and 2976 of 2025
Krishnaveni ... Appellant
vs.
1. N.Murugesan Nadar
2. M.Mercy
3. The District Registrar (Administration),
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of Sub-Registrar,
Kalakkad, Tirunelveli District.
5. M.Meena
6. V.Sriram
7. V.Renganathan
8. K.Karuppaiah ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:19 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.358 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent
against the order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.1585 of 2025, dated
23.01.2025.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand
For R1 & R2 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
For R3 & R4 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order made in
W.P(MD)No.1585 of 2025, dated 23.01.2025.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging the order
passed by the 3rd respondent herein dated 31.10.2023 dismissing the
appeal filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein / writ petitioners, as
against the order of refusal check slip issued by the 4th respondent
herein dated 22.06.2023, whereby, registration of the sale deed dated
02.05.2023 was refused on the ground that there is already an agreement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:19 pm )
for sale is pending and objection is raised by the agreement holder in
respect of the property comprised in S.No.661/1B to an extent of 24
cents and S.No.661/1A to an extent of 6 cents situated at
Padalayarkulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
3. The Writ Court, considering the fact that the alleged
agreement for sale is an unregistered one and that the suit filed by the
appellant and 8th respondent herein in O.S.No.252 of 2023 is only for the
relief of recovery of money and it has nothing to do with the agreement
of sale, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders impugned
therein and directed the 4th respondent / Sub Registrar to register the
sale deed on re-presentation of the document by the writ petitioners. As
against such an order, this intra-court appeal is filed.
4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 / writ petitioners have
filed O.S.No.194 of 2023 before the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri,
Tirunelveli District for the very same prayer in the writ petition and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:19 pm )
suppressing the said suit, they have approached this Court with unclean
hands and obtained the order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 / writ petitioners would contend that the Writ
Court, finding that the agreement for sale entered into by the appellant
as well as the 8th respondent herein with the vendor of the subject
property, was an unregistered one, held that the objections raised by the
appellant and 8th respondent herein, will not be an impediment for
registration of the subject property in favour the writ petitioners, and
accordingly allowed the writ petition directing registration of the
document. Thus, he would state that the order of the Writ Court does
not require interference.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government
Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4. Though respondents 5 and 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:19 pm )
have been served with notice, none appeared on their behalf. Notice
sent to the 7th respondent is returned with an endorsement 'deceased'
and service is awaited in respect of the 8th respondent.
7. Perusal of records shows that refusal check slip was
issued on the objection of the appellant and 8th respondent who stake
their case based on the agreement of sale entered into with the vendor of
the subject property. However, the said agreement of sale is an
unregistered one and therefore, it cannot have a bearing for refusal of
registration. Further, the suit filed by the appellant as well as the 8th
respondent in O.S.No.252 of 2023 is for recovery of money and it has
nothing to do with the alleged agreement of sale. Though the writ
petitioners have filed a suit for the very same prayer made in the writ
petition, when the writ petitioners have made out a prima facie case for
registration, we need not drive the parties to undergo the trauma of
conducting a full-fledged trial, as it has been repeatedly pointed out by
the constitutional courts that refusal to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy is available, is only a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:19 pm )
self-imposed restriction and it is not an absolute bar. In cases, where the
Court finds that it will be too inhuman to drive the parties to a regular
civil litigation, this Court can step in under Article 226 at least to
minimise the sufferings. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the
order passed by the Writ Court.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
07.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To:
1. The District Registrar (Administration),
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Office of Sub-Registrar,
Kalakkad, Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:19 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 02:48:19 pm )
