Madras High Court
Muthuchamy vs The Sub Registrar on 24 February, 2025
W.A.(MD)No.1008 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 22.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1008 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5496 and 5495 of 2020
Muthuchamy ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
-vs-
1.The Sub Registrar,
Thamaraipatti at Chittampatti,
Madurai. ... 1st Respondent/Respondent
2.Murugan ... 2nd Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.1361 of 2020 dated 01.09.2020 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan
For R1 : Mr.M.Sarangan
For R2 : No Appearance
________________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.1008 of 2020
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.]
The first respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein.
2. The main facts leading to filing of the writ appeal are as under:
One Pachavarnam and Kalyani Ammal had three sons by name
Murugan (Writ petitioner), Muthuchamy (second respondent in the writ
petition) and another son by name Kannan. Muthuchamy was employed at
Maladives and he remitted some amount from his earning at the foreign land
to his elder brother who was living at their native place so as to enable his
elder brother to purchase the property and hence, he claimed that he is the
owner of the petition land. Having sensed that the elder brother of the said
Muthuchamy (appellant in this writ appeal), namely Murugan taking steps to
sell the property, he lodged the complaint by way of cheque slip to the Sub
Registrar, Tamaraipatti at Chittampatti, Madurai and the same was taken as
Refusal Number:FPL/Thamaraipatti/1/2020. On the above circumstances,
when the writ petitioner Murugan, namely, the elder brother presented a sale
deed for registration, based upon the complaint that was numbered as stated
________________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
supra, refusal cheque slip was given and hence the elder brother Murugan
filed the above writ petition in W.P(MD)No.1361 of 2020 to quash the said
refusal cheque slip and to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner
dated 06.01.2020.
3. According to the writ petitioner(Murugan), the property in S.No.80/2
A2A, measuring to an extent of 6 cents situated at A.Valayapatti Village,
Melur Taluk, Thamaraipatti Sub Division, Madurai North Registration,
Madurai belongs to him and he is the absolute owner of the aforesaid property.
Initially, the petitioner had purchased the property, measuring to an extent of 7
cents in UDR S.No.80/2A from one G.V.Kumaresan, vide registered Doc.No.
710/2005 on the file of the 1st respondent/Sub Registrar. Likewise, the
petitioner purchased another 4 cents of lands on the southern side of S.No.
80/2A from his mother-in-law, Lakshmi Ammal, vide registered sale deed
dated 29.08.2005 and thereafter, for the aforesaid properties, measuring to an
extent of 11 cents, the petitioner was issued with Joint patta vide Patta No.
________________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
4. It appears from the typeset of papers that the petitioner filed a suit in
O.S.No.302 of 2012 for permanent injunction against the 2nd respondent
herein on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. Pending suit, the
petitioner sold 5 cents of the said property to one Renganathan, vide registered
sale deed dated 23.05.2016. Thereafter, by judgment and decree dated
28.01.2019, the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the extent and four
boundaries of the said property have not been properly described. Challenging
the same, no appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner and that the judgment
and decree dated 28.01.2019 had attained finality.
5. Further more, according to the second respondent in the writ petition/
the appellant in this appeal, sub division of the property was made by the 1st
respondent and the petitioner was issued with patta in respect of the remaining
portion of the property in S.No.80/2A. The petitioner had sold the said
property measuring to an extent of 6 cents to one Manikandan and for
registering the same, though the petitioner presented the sale deed dated
06.01.2020 before the 1st respondent for registration, without registering the
same, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned refusal check slip dated
________________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
06.01.2020 stating that the petitioner has to prove his title for the property in
S.No.80/2A2A.
6. Challenging the same, the said Murugan filed the above writ
petition alleging that he is the owner of the property and he filed a suit for
injunction and that was dismissed as the schedule of the property was not
properly given. The suit filed by the present appellant/second respondent in
O.S.No.89 of 2016 against the writ petitioner was dismissed for nonpayment
of cost and hence, he would state that there is a property dispute.
7(a) . The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner before
the Writ Court is that the second respondent paid the money to the petitioner
by utilising the same that the petitioner has purchased the petition mentioned
property in his name and therefore, based on the objection given by the second
respondent, the Sub Registrar/first respondent refused to register the said
document. Our attention is drawn to Rule 55 of the Tamilnadu Registration
Rules.
________________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
7(b) The said Rule deal with the fact that the registering officer has no
authority to enquire the petitioner or any third party to validate the document
presented before him for registration. Admittedly, Muthuchamy said to have
given money to Murugan (Writ Petitioner). But Murugan said to have
purchased the property in his name. For the reasons best known neither
Murugan nor Muthuchamy (writ petitioner and second respondent) have not
filed any suit for declaration of injunction while one suit has been dismissed
for non-payment of cost assumes significance. In view of the clear provision
of Rule 55 of the Tamilnadu Registration Rules, the learned Single Judge has
hold that since Murugan/the elder brother in whose name the sale deed stands
presume to be the owner. So far the sale deed in his favour is not set aside by
due process of law and considering the same, the learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition and quashed the refusal cheque slip issued by the
first respondent and also remitted the matter back to the first respondent to
consider the matter and register the sale deed executed by the writ petitioner
dated 06.01.2020, if it is otherwise in order.
________________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
8. Aggrieved over the said order, Muthuchamy/younger brother has
filed this writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant/second respondent
would contend that the suit for injunction is granted by way of interim order
and there is a civil dispute with regard to the property and hence, the order
needs to be interfered with.
9. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Registration
Department Mr.M.Sarangan would state that taking note of the fact that
Murugan(writ petitioner) is the owner of the property, he has presented a sale
deed on 08.10.2010 and the same was registered in Doc.No.1852/2020 and the
present writ appeal is filed on 14.01.2020. Copy of the registered document is
also placed before this Court. Based on the counter affidavit of the
Registration Department, he would state that the sale deed was not executed in
favour of the very same person but to a third party to this writ petition/appeal.
10. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the said argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant. The fact remains that the original sale
deed stands in the name of Murugan/writ petitioner. He has now sold the
________________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
property to a third party by a registered sale deed dated 08.10.2020 in Doc.No.
1852/2020 before the Sub Registrar, Thamaraipatti. Hence, it is always open
to Muthusamy to challenge the said sale deed in the manner known to law.
Besides for the reasons best known, Muthuchamy was not filed the suit for
declaration as alleged title over the property as seen in the affidavit filed in the
writ petition. On perusal of the lower Court order produced in the typeset, this
Court find that it is only a suit for bare injunction and not for title and hence
we find that viewing from any angle the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge is sustainable in law and does not call for any interference.
11. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[T.K.R., J.] [N.S., J.]
24.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PJL
________________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
PJL
Judgment made in
24.02.2025
________________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:31 pm )
