Madras High Court
J.Mehala Devi vs The District Registrar (Admin) on 7 April, 2025
W.P(MD).No.2811 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P(MD).No.2811 of 2025
1.J.Mehala Devi
2.J.Sathis Kannan
3.J.Mathukannan
4.J.Jagadishkannan ...Petitioners
Vs
1.The District Registrar (Admin)
O/o.District Registrar
Sivaganga District.
2.The Joint Sub Registrar,
Joint Sub Registrar Office II,
Sivaganga,
Sivaganga District.
3.Meenakshi ...Respondents
PRAYER :-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, pleased to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other
appropriate Writ or Order or Direction, to call for the records in pursuant to
the 2nd respondent impugned refusal slip in RFL/No2, Joint Registrar,
Sivagangai/1/2025 dated 13.01.2025 quash the same and consequently direct
the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed dated 13.01.2025 in S.No.219 in
an extent of 7 acres 93 cents, Udaikulam Village, Poovali Group,
Kalaiyarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
W.P(MD).No.2811 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.J.John
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.B.Aravind Sreevatsa
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
To call for the records in pursuant to the 2nd respondent
impugned refusal slip in RFL/No2, Joint Registrar,
Sivagangai/1/2025 dated 13.01.2025 quash the same and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed
dated 13.01.2025 in S.No.219 in an extent of 7 acres 93 cents,
Udaikulam Village, Poovali Group, Kalaiyarkovil Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
2.Petitioners are the legal heirs of one Jeyakan. They plead that
Jeyakan had purchased the properties situated at S.No.290 of Udaikulam
Village, Poovali group, Kalaiyarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District from two
persons, namely, Pichaiappan @ Pichai, S/o.Thadiyappa Kone and Alagar,
S/o. Muthu Gounder. They add that on 23.01.2006, Jeyakan had passed
away. On his death, he left behind as his legal heirs his parents, Writ
Petitioners and his second wife.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
3.On 18.02.2005, the third respondent Meenakshi claimed to have
purchased the very same property from one Nagalingam, S/o.Alagar Kone
and one Punitha, daughter of Pichaiappan. The petitioners plead that without
verifying the details the Sub Registrar had registered the alleged fraudulent
sale deed, in favour of the third respondent. Petitioners states that on coming
to know all the fraudulent act, they lodged a complaint with the District
Registrar, (Administration), Sivaganga District. On 15.06.2016, the District
Registrar passed an order directing the second respondent to lodge a
complaint arraying the third respondent and her vendors as accused.
4.Thereafter one Chellammal, wife of vendor of the petitioners' father,
presented a suit in O.S.No.424 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Court
at Sivagangai. This is a suit seeking declaration to declare the sale deed
executed in favour of Jeyakan as null and void and also for the relief of
partition. Though Jeyakan had passed away in the year 2006, he had been
impleaded as the third defendant in the suit.
5.As the order of the first respondent dated 15.06.2016 had not been
implemented, the petitioners filed W.P(MD).No.15332 of 2020 seeking the
implementation of the order. This Writ Petition was ordered on 05.10.2023.
Thereafter, the petitioners lodged a criminal complaint against the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
respondent before the District Crime Branch at Sivagangai. The said
complaint was taken on file by the DCB, Sivagangai in Crime No.21 of 2023
on 20.12.2023. The petitioners alleged that the third respondent and her
vendors have committed offences attracting punishment under Section 420,
465, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
6.In order to avoid arrest the third respondent moved this Court for
anticipatory bail. This petition was numbered as Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23600 of
2023. When the bail application came up for hearing on 31.01.2024, the
third respondent accepted to cancel the sale deed executed in her favour, as a
condition, for grant of bail. Recording the same, anticipatory bail was
granted directing the third respondent and her vendors to execute the
cancellation deed. The third respondent pleaded that when she attempted to
contact her vendors, she came to know that they are not traceable. Therefore,
the order dated 31.01.2024 was modified directing the third respondent to
file a suit for a declaration that the sale deed is null and void.
7.Pursuant to the undertaking given to this Court, the third respondent
presented a suit in O.S.No.125 of 2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court
at Sivagangai. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the suit holding that
the same is barred by limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
8.Thereafter, the petitioners claimed to be the legal heirs of the
original owner of the property presented a sale deed in favour of one
Rameshkumar. They presented the same for registration. This sale deed was
refused to be registered by the second respondent stating the following
reasons:-
a)The original documents of the property had not been produced.
b)The revenue records had not been produced.
c)The legal heirship certificate and the death certificate of Jeyakan had
not been produced by the Writ Petitioners.
d)A suit is pending in O.S.No.424 of 2020 and since suit is pending in
O.S.No.424 of 2020, registration of this document will account to double
entry.
Challenging the same the present Writ Petition has been filed.
9.Taking note that the third respondent also has a sale deed in her
favour, I issued notice to the third respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar takes
notice for the respondents 1 and 2.
10.Mr.John for the petitioners reiterated the facts stated in the
affidavit that as the writ petitioners are the legal heirs of Jeyakan, they are
entitled to alienate the property. Mr.Aravind Sreevatsa appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
third respondent stated that the third respondent had complied with the
requirements of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.23600 of 2023 and the
modification order passed by this Court on 31.01.2024. He pleads that she
has presented a suit, unfortunately, the same had been rejected. He states that
he had preferred an appeal against the rejection of plaint and the same is
pending consideration.
11.Mr.Suresh Kumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader
argues that the impugned order is sustainable in all reasons.
12.I heard Mr.John for the Writ Petitioners and gone through the
records.
13.Insofar as the demand for production of the original documents and
revenue records is concerned, it has been settled by a judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in P.Pappu Vs. The Sub Registrar, 2024 (4) CTC 575
that a Sub Registrar cannot demand for production of the original deeds as
condition precedent for registration of a subsequent document. Therefore,
the first two reasons given by the Sub Registrar for the rejection of the
document cannot be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
14.Insofar as the legal heirship certificate of the deceased Jeyakan is
concerned Mr.John states that the petitioners will upload the same along
with the draft of the sale deed that is being executed by them in favour of
Ramesh Kumar. That resolves the third issue.
15.Insofar as the double documentation is concerned, this Court in
T.Senthilvel Vs The District Registrar in WP.(MD).No.22114 of 2024
dated 17.10.2024, held that for a mere fact that there would be a double
entry, a document cannot be refused to be registered. Respectfully applying
the said verdict to the facts of the case, the last reason given by the Sub
Registrar, which is strongly urged as a ground to sustain the order by
Mr.Suresh Kumar, also stands rejected.
16.With reference to the last objection that the suit in O.S.No.424 of
2020 is pending, I should point out the fact that the pending suit does not bar
a person from presenting a document. This position too has been settled by a
Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramayee Vs The Sub Registrar and
others, 2020 (6) CTC 697.
17.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned check slip
cannot be sustained. This Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Check
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
Slip is quashed. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to
receive the sale deed executed by the Writ Petitioners in favour of Ramesh
Kumar and register the same within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
07.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
ep
To
1.The District Registrar (Admin)
O/o.District Registrar
Sivaganga District.
2.The Joint Sub Registrar,
Joint Sub Registrar Office II,
Sivaganga,
Sivaganga District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J,
ep
07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:36 am )
