Madras High Court
Indhirani vs The Sub Registrar on 6 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.7657 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.7657 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.7015 of 2014
Indhirani ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Melapalayam Sub Registrar,
Tirunelveli.
2.Meeran Malik
3.Muruganrajan ... Respondents
(R2 and R3 were impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 01.08.2024 in
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8691 and 9181 of 2024)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the impugned proceedings in RFL/Melapalayam/23/2024,
dated 19.03.2024 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and
further direct the respondent to register the General Power of Attorney as
presented by the petitioner in favour of one Ayappan S/o.Somu Thevar
vide Application No.S01LANDVV202403194683107.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7657 of 2024
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For R1 :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 :Mr.B.Michael Sebastin
*****
ORDER
The Writ Petitioner challenges the refusal check slip issued by the
first respondent in his proceedings in RFL/Melapalayam/23/2024, dated
19.03.2024.
2.I heard Mr.K.Jeyamohanfor the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and
Mr.B.Michael Sebastin, for the third respondent. The second respondent
is reported to be dead. As no adverse order has been passed against the
second respondent, I am proceeding to enter upon the judgment.
3.The case of the petitioner is rather simple. The property in
question was belonged to the Government and it was assigned in favour
of one Arumugam. Arumugam entered into a partnership concern with
one Vellaipandian. Disputes and differences arose between Arumugam
and Vellaipandian, which resulted in filing of a suit in O.S.No.214 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2015 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruenlveli.
4.This said suit was referred to Lok Adalat and a compromise
award was passed by the said authority. In terms of the compromise
award, Arumugam received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and gave up his
right to the property in favour of Vellaipandian.
5.Having come across the property, Vellaipandian had executed a
settlement deed in favour of his brother, one V.Kannan. The said
V.Kannan unfortunately passed away on 10.05.2022 leaving behind the
petitioner/wife, as his sole legal heir. In that capacity, the petitioner had
presented a deed of power of attorney in favour of one Ayyappan.
6.When the document was presented for registration, the Sub
Registrar noted that as early as in 1995, the aforesaid Arumugam had
alienated the property in favour of the second respondent. Hence, he
returned the power of attorney deed. Challenging the same, the present
Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Mr.K.Jeyamohan pleads that subsequent to the Lok Adalat
award, the same was registered. He also points out that the aforesaid
Vellaipandian had also filed a suit in O.S.No.548 of 2017 against his
erstwhile partner, Arumugam. The said suit was decreed. The judgment
and decree wes also registered. Hence, he argues that the document
being the general power of attorney, presented by the petitioner, can be
received and registered. He seeks for quashing the refusal check slip.
8.Mr.B.Michael Sebastin, argues that the petitioner had abandoned
her husband, V.Kannan and he had executed a “WILL” in favour of the
third respondent on 02.06.2021. Therefore, he pleads that the petitioner
is not entitled for registration of the power attorney deed.
9.I have carefully considered the submission and I have gone
through the records.
10.The narration of the facts shows that on the file of the first
respondent, there is a record to show that Arumugam, the original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
beneficiary of the allotment by the Government, had alienated the same
in favour of the second respondent in Doc.No.5987/1995. Even if this
document is a “Parasala” document, unless and until, it is set aside in the
manner known to law, the first respondent cannot receive a document,
which conflicts with the earlier documents. The first respondent is not
competent to deal with the issue of title or possession. He has to verify
whether the person, who is presenting the document is the person
claiming through the original vendor. In terms of the verification, he has
come to a conclusion that as there is a conflicting document on record, he
is not receiving the same.
11.Apart from this predicament that the first respondent has faced,
I have to note that the vendor, Arumugam had already alienated the
property in favour of the second respondent. After having alienated the
property, he exhausted whatever right, title and interest over the same in
favour of the second respondent. Whether there is a transfer of title or
whether the document was registered before the Sub Registrar, Parasala,
is valid or not, are all matter, which has to be necessarily decided by the
Civil Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.Leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional
Civil Court for declaration of her title to the property, with or without the
relief of injunction of recovery of possession, this Writ Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Index :Yes / No 06.02.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
cmr
To
The Sub Registrar,
Melapalayam Sub Registrar,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
cmr
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
