Madras High Court
S.Kamaraj vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 3 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2025
S.Kamaraj ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Velayuthampalayam,
Karur District.
3.A/M.Balasubramania Swamy Kovil,
rep., by its Executive Officer,
Pugalaimalai, Velayuthampalayam,
Pugalur Taluk, Karur District. ... Respondents
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 second respondent in RFL/Velayuthampalayam/8/2025
dated 20.01.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct
the second respondent herein to register and record the Sale Certificate
dated 01.08.2024 forthwith.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:36 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.5507 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.S.I.Muthiah
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)
Mr.M.Saravanan (for R3)
ORDER
The petitioner is a Court auction purchaser. The property situated
at Punjai Pagalur Municipality, Karur Taluk and District, in Plot No.1
comprised in S.No.344, was the subject matter of attachment in O.S.No.
896 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge(FAC), Karur.
Subsequently, the property was brought for sale in Court auction. The
Court auction was initiated pursuant to the order of the Additional
Subordinate Judge, Karur, in E.P.No.20 of 2022. The property was sold
on 29.11.2023.
2. Pursuant to the sale, a Sale Certificate was issued by the
Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur. A copy of the Sale Certificate was
forwarded by the learned Judge to the second respondent. This was in
his proceedings in D.No.2184 of 2024, dated 27.08.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:36 pm )
3. On receipt of the Sale Certificate, the second respondent refused
to register the same on the ground that objection had been given by the
Executive Officer of Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Thirukovil, Pugalur,
Karur District. Hence, this writ petition.
4. I heard Mr.S.I.Muthiah for the petitioner, Mr.N.Ramesh
Arumugam, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for R1 and
R2 and Mr.M.Saravanan for R3.
5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ground for
rejection is “there is an objection that the property belongs to the third
respondent”. Hence, the Sub-Registrar seems to have invoked Section
22A(1)(ii) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'
for brevity). Section 22A(1)(ii) of the Act would apply only for the
instrument relating to the transfer of immovable properties by way of
sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease. If an instrument falls outside the
page of Section 22A(1)(ii) of the Act, then it cannot be treated as
attracting of said provision. The provision for filing the Sale Certificate
is not similar to registration of instrument of transfer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:36 pm )
6. Registration of Court auction sale certificates falls under Part-
XV of the Act. Section 89(2) of the Act mandates that the Court granting
a certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall send a copy of such certificate to the
registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole
or any part of the immovable property, comprised in such certificate is
situated. On being received by the registering authority, he shall file the
same in Book No.1, which is maintained by him.
7. By the very nature of things, filing of document pursuant to the
order of the Court, cannot be treated as akin to presentation of a
document of transfer by consenting individuals. Section 22A(1) of the
Act is not wide enough to cover situation, to which, Section 89 of the Act
applies. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
8. The second respondent has misapplied Section 22A(1) of the
Act and has come to a conclusion that it would apply even for filing
procedure as contemplated under Section 89 of the Act. Hence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:36 pm )
impugned order has to be interfered with. Accordingly, the same is set
aside.
9. At this stage Mr.M.Saravanan points out that the claim of the
third respondent that it is a temple property has to be taken into
consideration by this Court. The position, when the document of transfer
of immovable property such as those covered under Section 22(A)(1)(ii)
of the Act is presented, is settled by a judgment of a Division Bench of
this Court in Sudha Ravikumar and another Vs The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner and others, 2017 4 MLJ 445.
10. If the writ petitioner presents a document, which is covered any
of the instruments contemplated under Section 22A(1) of the Act, the Sub
Registrar shall necessarily follow the judgment of the Division Bench
referred to above. As of now, it is only a filing procedure that is being
adopted and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the third respondent.
11. In result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The second respondent
shall file the Sale Certificate issued by the learned Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:36 pm )
Subordinate Judge, Karur, within two weeks from today (i.e.,
03.03.2025). No costs.
Index :Yes / No 03.03.2025
NCC :Yes / No
Rmk
To
1.The District Registrar (Administration),
Trichy District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Tiruverumbur Sub Registrar's Office,
Tiruverumbur, Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:36 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 12:43:36 pm )
