Madras High Court
Vaiyapuri vs The Sub-Registrar on 7 January, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P (MD).No.491 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P (MD).No.491 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)No.340 of 2025
Vaiyapuri ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Registrar,
(Document Registration Department)
Aravakurichi Sub-Registrar Office,
Karur District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Aravakurichi/35/2024 dated 18.09.2024
and consequently issue direction to the respondent to register the Judgment in
O.S.No.11 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur
dated 20.01.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suyambulingabharathi
For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P (MD).No.491 of 2025
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip
issued by the respondent, dated 18.09.2024 on the ground that already this
Court in W.P(MD)No.18546 of 2024 granted interim stay.
2. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
4. The property comprised in S.No.520/2 situated at Pungampadi
West Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District owned by one Periyasamy
Gounder. In turn, he had sold out the same in favour of one R.K.Ashok Kumar
by the registered sale deed, dated 11.04.2008 vide document No.1029/2008. In
turn, he had sold out the same in favour of the petitioner by the registered sale
deed, dated 24.09.2008 vide document No.2843 of 2008. After purchase, the
entire revenue records were mutated in favour of the petitioner and the
petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
so, the legal heirs of the original owner of the property, namely, Periyasamy
Gounder, had fraudulently filed a partition suit in O.S.No.201 of 2008, on the
file of the Sub-Court, Karur and obtained ex-parte decree. In fact, the
petitioner was not added as a party. After a decree, they executed the
fraudulent sale deed in favour of one Parvathi by the sale deed dated
21.01.2013 vide Doc.No.166/13. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to
file a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur
for declaration and permanent injunction and to set aside the ex-parte decree in
O.S.No.201 of 2008 and also challenging the subsequent sale deed dated
21.01.2013 registered vide in Doc.No.166/2013. By the judgment and decree
dated 20.01.2016, the ex-parte decree was set aside and the sale deed dated
21.01.2013 also set aside by allowing the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner had
executed two settlement deeds in favour of his son and wife vide Document No.
583 of 2016, dated 22.02.2016 and document No.3715/2021 dated 11.10.2021.
Suppressing those facts, once again the purchaser, namely, Parvathi had
executed another sale deed in respect of very same property on 28.09.2022 vide
document No.4400/2022 in favour of the third party. Therefore, the petitioner's
son loged a complaint under Section 77-A of the Registration Act before the
District Registrar and also filed a suit in O.S.No.No.290 of 2022 before the
District Court, Karur challenging the subsequent sale deed as null and void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The said suit is now pending. The complaint lodged before the District
Registrar was enquired and cancelled the fraudulent document by the order
dated 23.06.2023. The said order was challenged by the said Parvathi in
W.P(MD)No.18546 of 2024 and obtained the stay on the ground that the
provision under Section 77-A of the Registration Act is declared as
unconstitutional. However, the said proceeding is nothing to do with the earlier
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Principal
District Court, Karur.
5. Even assuming that the order passed by the District Registrar dated
23.06.2023 is set aside, it has nothing to do with the registration of the
judgment and decree obtained by the petitioner in the earlier suit in O.S.No.11
of 2013. Therefore, the respondent ought not to have refused to register the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.11 of 2013. Insofar as the limitation is
concerned, under Section 23 of the Registration Act is also not applicable while
registering the Civil Court judgment and decree. Therefore, absolutely, there is
no bar for the respondent to register the judgment and decree passed by the
Civil Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In view of the above, this Court finds infirmity in the order passed
by the respondent, dated 18.09.2024 and it cannot be sustained and liable to be
quashed.
7. Accordingly, the order of the respondent dated 18.09.2024 is
quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to represent
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.11 of 2013 along with original
certified copy of the judgment and decree for registration and on receipt of the
same, the respondent is directed to register the same, if it is otherwise in order.
No costs.
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No 07.01.2025
Speaking/Non Speaking order
am
To
The Sub-Registrar,
(Document Registration Department)
Aravakurichi Sub-Registrar Office,
Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
am
07.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
