Madras High Court
P.Ganesan vs The District Registrar on 6 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.15324 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.15324 of 2024
P.Ganesan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Theni,
Theni District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of Sub Registrar,
Theni District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned check slip of the 2nd respondent dated
3.7.2024 and impugned order dated 3.7.2024 of 2nd respondent refusing
to register the sale deed of the petitioner dated 27.06.2024 quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents herein to forthwith register
the sale deed dated 27.06.2024.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.15324 of 2024
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu
For Respondents :Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned check
slip issued by the second respondent dated 03.07.2024 and the impugned
order dated 03.07.2024 of the second respondent refusing to register the
sale deed of the petitioner dated 27.06.2024, to quash the same and to
direct the respondents to forthwith register the sale deed dated
27.06.2024.
2. The petitioner is the son of one V.Paradesi. It is claimed that
Paradesi ancestrally was entitled to the following extents of the
properties in Oonjampatti Village, Theni District.
Sl.No. Survey No. Extent
Acre-Cent
1 219 2.35
2 217 1.15
3 219/3 0.44
4 219/6 0.2.
5 219/4E 0.44
6 219/4A3 0.20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 219/4A1 1.77
8 219/4A2 0.47
9 219/4B1 0.10
10 219/4B3 0.10
11 217/1 1.90
12 219/4 6.04
13 218/2 1.49
14 219/4C 0.51
Total 17.24
3. One Danushkodi along with others had created false and
fabricated documents, as if Paradesi and others, had sold the property in
their favour. Aggrieved by the same, Paradesi and other family members
filed a suit in O.S.No.106 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court
at Periyakulam. The suit came to be decreed on 07.12.2004. The
petitioner has also registered the judgment and decree in the said suit. As
Paradesi had passed away, the petitioner pleads that he succeeded to the
property. He executed a sale deed in favour of one Gnanadhesikha Pillai
and 7 others. When the document was presented for registration, it was
rejected through the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. I heard Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.N.Ramesh, Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents.
5. Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu pleads that even during the life time of
the petitioner's father, certain persons have projected the documents
claiming to be the owners thereof. Aggrieved by the same, his father had
presented a suit for declaration of title and for injunction. The suit had
been decreed, which shows that the petitioner's father, Paradesi, became
the owner of the property. On his death, the petitioner succeeded to the
estate and is therefore entitled by right to alienate the same in favour of
third parties or any other person he chooses. He states that the impugned
order is untenable and has to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam points out that the
Registrar is not questioning the title of Paradesi to the property. He
points out that though the decree is of the year 2004, thereafter, Paradesi
along with his brother Karuppiah had alienated the property in favour of
one Balasubramanian. The said Balasubramanian had given a power of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
attorney in favour of one Thangamani and subsequently, Thangamani had
parcelled out and sold various extents of the property to third parties. He
states that the document that has been presented for registration by the
writ petitioner is not the unsold extent of the property, but covers the
entire schedule given in the decree. Therefore, he states that the
impugned order does not require any interference.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and I
have gone through the records.
8. The narration of the aforesaid facts shows that the petitioner's
father had secured a decree in the year 2004. Subsequently, he is alleged
to have executed a sale deed along with his brother in favour of a third
party. In such circumstances, the argument of Mr.Thalaimuthurasu that
by virtue of the decree dated 07.12.2004, the petitioner's father had
become the absolute owner and hence, the petitioner is also entitled to
execute documents cannot hold water. It is possible that the entire extent
had not been alienated by Karuppiah and Paradesi. Therefore, while
presenting the document, it is the duty of the writ petitioner to exclude
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the lands that have been alienated by his father and present the document
for sale.
9. At this stage, Mr.Thalaimuthurasu pleads that the petitioner's
father had never alienated the property and therefore, the documents that
have been shown in the encumbrance are all fraudulent. Whether the
document is fraudulent or otherwise cannot be dealt with by a Sub
Registrar. It has to be dealt with by the jurisdictional civil Court.
10. The option is for the petitioner either to accept the sale deeds
that are found in the encumbrance certificate, exclude those extents and
present a document for the remaining extent or to challenge the
alienations made by way of a suit. The documents have been brought to
the notice of the petitioner by way of a proceeding of the Sub Registrar
on 03.07.2024. Therefore, there is always time to the petitioner to present
a suit for title and other consequential reliefs. Suffice to state that these
are not matters, which can be gone into a writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. With the above liberty granted to the writ petitioner, the Writ
Petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Index :Yes / No 06.02.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
mm
To
1.The District Registrar,
Theni,
Theni District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of Sub Registrar,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mm
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
