Madras High Court
K.Janani vs The Sub Registrar on 24 April, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Writ Petition No.14764 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.14764 of 2025
K.Janani
W/o.Prasath, D/o.Bharathi Alias,
Kalaichelva Bharathi, 39-1,
Krishnasami Naidu Street, Tpt Main
Road, Bargur, Krishnagiri-635 104,
Krishangiri District
Petitioner
Vs
The Sub Registrar
Palacode SRO, Dharmapuri District
Respondent
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to the impugned RFL/PALACODE/48/2025 dated
17.4.2025 passed by the respondent, quash the same and consequently to
direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 17.4.2025 executed
by petitioner in favour of V.Aravindan in respect of (i) 2 Ares and 84 sq.
meters in S.F.No.757/3B2D and (ii) 122 Ares and 290 sq.meters in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:33:57 am )
Writ Petition No.14764 of 2025
S.F.Nos.757/3A, 757/3 B2A, 757/3B2B, 757/3B2C, 764/1A, 764/1B,
764/1C, 765/1A1 and a Well in S.F.No.757/3A, Jerthalav village,
Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan
For Respondents : Mr.U.Bharanidharan
Special Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 17.04.2025 and for a
consequential direction to the respondent to register the sale deed dated
17.04.2025 executed by the petitioner with respect to the subject
property.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondent.
3. The impugned refusal check slip has been issued by the
respondent mainly on the ground that the subject property has already
been dealt with by one Kalaichelva Bharathi, who is none other than the
father of the petitioner. Therefore, the document presented by the
petitioner for registration was not entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:33:57 am )
Writ Petition No.14764 of 2025
4. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the earlier order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.12331 of 2025 wherein, the same dispute between the petitioner
and his deceased father was dealt with by this Court. For proper
appreciation, relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
'4.On carefully considering the submissions
made on either side and also the materials available on
record, it is seen that the subject properties originally stood
in the name of the paternal great grand father. He executed
a Will dated 12.01.1981 bequeathing the property in favour
of seven beneficiaries and life interest was given in favour
of the father of the petitioner. The testator died on
19.02.1981 and the Will came into force. Based on the life
interest that was given in the name of the father, he mutated
the revenue records in his name in Patta No.402. It seems
that the father had dealt with a portion of the property and
executed Sale Deeds in the year 2004. The petitioner who is
one of the beneficiary in the Will wanted to deal with the
properties which devolved upon the petitioner and executed
a Sale Deed dated 28.03.2025. The same was refused to be
registered by the respondent on the ground that the original
Will was not produced and that the father of the petitioner
had already dealt with a portion of the property.
5.On carefully going through the copy of the
Will that was placed before this Court, it is seen that the
father of the petitioner was only given life interest. This will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:33:57 am )
Writ Petition No.14764 of 2025
only mean that he will be entitled to enjoy the property
during his life time without any power of alienation.
However, the father of the petitioner without referring to
the Will, has independently dealt with the portion of the
property in the year 2004. Such Sale Deed that was
executed by the father of the petitioner itself is questionable
since a life estate holder will not have the right to dispose
of the property except enjoying the property during the life
time. The law on this issue is now too well settled and
useful reference can be made to the order relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner in D.Rajendiran vs.
D.Dumararaj in S.A.No.141 of 2019 dated 28.06.2024
(Paragraph No.22).
6.Insofar as the insistence for the original
document, it has now been repeatedly held that such
insistence of original document cannot be a condition
precedent for registering a document. If the original Will
has been lost, a recital to that effect can be included in the
Sale Deed executed by the petitioner. This Court is also
taking note of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in
K.Gopi vs. the Sub-Registrar and Others in Civil Appeal
No.3954 of 2025 dated 07.04.2025. The Apex Court has
held that Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of
the Registration Act and due to such inconsistency, it has
been declared as ultravires. In view of the same, the
respondent is denuded of the power of going into the title to
the property or insisting for original title documents.
7.In the light of the above discussion, the
impugned refusal Check Slip dated 01.04.2025 issued by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:33:57 am )
Writ Petition No.14764 of 2025
the respondent is hereby quashed and there shall be a
direction to the respondent to register the Sale Deed, if it is
otherwise in order. It is also made clear that ultimately, if
there is a rival claim made over the same property, it can
only be resolved before the competent Civil Court and
order passed in this writ petition pursuant to which the Sale
Deed is executed and registered, will not come in the way
of the rival claimants to agitate their rights independently.'
5. The above order squarely covers the case on hand.
6. It is seen that the father of the petitioner, who was given life
estate had dealt with the property. The same will not bind the petitioner,
who is beneficiary under the Will. Hence, this dispute can only be
resolved before the competent Civil Court.
7. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal
check slip dated 17.04.2025 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed
and there shall be a direction to the respondent to register the sale deed, if
it is otherwise in order. It is also abundantly made clear that if there is
any rival claim over the same property, it can be resolved before the
competent Civil Court and the order passed in this writ petition will not
come in the way of rival claimants agitating their rights independently
before the Civil Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:33:57 am )
Writ Petition No.14764 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
mk
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
24.04.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
mk
To
The Sub Registrar
Palacode SRO, Dharmapuri District
Writ Petition No.14764 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 11:33:57 am )
