Madras High Court
Senthilkumar vs Inspector General Of Registration on 22 April, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.10803 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.10803 of 2025
Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1 Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai 600 028.
2 The District Registrar (Admin),
Sankaran Koil,
Tirunelveli District.
3 The Sub Registrar,
Sankaran Kovil,
Tirunelveli District.
4 Seeniammal
5 Periya Ganapathy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to
delete the entry of the registered judgment and decree bearing Doc.No.
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:32 am )
W.P.(MD) No.10803 of 2025
2823/2024 registered on the file of the 3rd Respondent from all its records
including the encumbrance certificate.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Mano
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed, seeking for a mandamus, directing the
2nd respondent to delete the entry of the registered judgment and decree
bearing Doc.No.2823/2024 registered on the file of the 3rd Respondent from
all its records, including the encumbrance certificate.
2. Mr.T.M.Mano, who appears before this Court via video-
conferencing for the petitioner, vehemently pleads that the dismissal of the
suit for declaration of title and injunction by the writ petitioner does not mean
a right is conferred on the respondents 4 and 5.
3. It is too well settled that the decree of a civil court does not
create a right on any party. A suit for declaration, merely seeks the assistance
of the Court, to declare a pre-existing right in the plaintiff. The dismissal of a
suit for declaration of title to immovable property does not mean to declare
that the defendants are the owners of the property. However, this issue is
absolutely alien to the relief sought for in the present writ petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:32 am )
4. The respondents 4 and 5 have registered a judgment and
decree in a suit and appeal, which had been presented by the writ petitioner.
There is no bar under the Registration Act,1908, or the Rules made
thereunder to refuse registration of a judgment and decree.
5. Mr.Mano relies upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.4176 of
2025, dated 27.02.2025, to press home the point that there is a power in the
court to direct deletion of an entry.
6. A perusal of that judgment shows that what had been
registered was not a judgment or decree of a court, but an interlocutory order,
passed in a pending suit. An interlocutory order is passed to maintain status
quo pending the litigation and, obviously it does not create a limit on the
existing rights of any party. It is only meant to preserve the status quo,
pending litigation - Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Others, AIR 1964 SC
993. The second portion of the judgment dealt with a direction given by
another learned single Judge that pleadings could also be registered. That
direction has been held to be per incuriam, as there was no provision under the
Registration Act and the Rules with regard to registration of pleadings. In the
present case, what has been registered is not an interlocutory order, but a
decree.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:32 am )
7. Apart from that, I find that a second appeal has been preferred
to this Court in S.A.SR (MD) No.15657 of 2025. As regards the fear of
Mr.Mano that respondents 4 and 5 may alienate the property pending the
litigation, it is taken care of by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Even otherwise, it is always open to the petitioner to move the second
appellate court and get appropriate orders of injunction not to alienate the
suit property.
8. Leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his rights in the
pending second appeal, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected W.M.P.(MD) No.8058 of 2025 is closed.
22.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dixit
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:32 am )
To:
1 Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai 600 028.
2 The District Registrar (Admin),
Sankaran Koil,
Tirunelveli District.
3 The Sub Registrar,
Sankaran Kovil,
Tirunelveli District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:32 am )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
dixit
22.04.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 11:21:32 am )
