Madras High Court
R.Shanmugapriya vs The Sub Registrar on 25 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.5301 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.5301 of 2025
R.Shanmugapriya ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Vathirairuppu, Virudhunagar District.
2.Bavani
3.T.Sankara Subramaniam ... Respondents
(R2 was suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 27.02.2025)
(R3 was impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 24.03.2025 in W.M.P.
(MD)No.6037 of 2025)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
entire records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number
RFL/Vaithirairuppu/2/2025, dated 11.02.2025 of the respondent and to
quash the same and further to direct the respondent to register the MODT
dated 11.02.2025 which is presented for registration on 11.02.2025 in
respect of petitioner’s land in S.No.693/1 to the extent of 43 cents
situated at W.Pudupatti Village, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.5301 of 2025
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Aravindaraj
For R1 :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 :Mr.A.Balaji
For R3 :Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
*****
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent, in
No.RFL/Vaithirairuppu/2/2025, dated 11.02.2025 with a consequential
direction to the first respondent to register the memorandum of deposit of
title deed, dated 11.02.2025, which was presented for registration on
11.02.2025 in respect of the petitioner’s land in S.No.693/1 to an extent
of 43 cents situated at W.Pudupatti Village, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar
District.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the property situated in
S.No.693/1, W.Pudupatti Village, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District
belonged to one T.Sankara Subramaniam, the third respondent herein.
He had mortgaged the property with M/s.City Union Bank. Alleging
default, the Bank brought the property for auction by invoking the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner had participated in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
auction held on 18.06.2022 and was the successful auction purchaser.
Consequent to the purchase, a sale certificate was issued in her favour
and the same was also registered with the first respondent.
3.The third respondent and his father, one K.P.Thirumalai
challenged the SARFAESI proceedings before this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.20914 of 2022. The said Writ Petition came to be
dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner mutated the revenue records in her
favour. She approached M/s.Vistaar Financial Services Private Limited
for a loan. The financial institution called upon her to execute a
mortgage deed in its favour. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a
mortgage deed and took it for registration with the first respondent. The
first respondent refused to register the same citing that the property was
the subject matter of an attachment by the Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. The
petitioner challenged the same by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.
8393 of 2023. This Court allowed the Writ Petition on 29.11.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
4.Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the second
respondent, Ms.Bavani, daughter of K.P.Thirumalai and sister of the third
respondent, had instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in
O.S.No.70 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Court at Srivilliputhur and that the suit had been decreed. It is the claim
of the petitioner that the second respondent has no right over the
property, as she had already executed a document of gift in favour of the
third respondent in Doc.No.370/2013, dated 13.03.2013. Aggrieved by
the preliminary decree passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge at Srivilliputhur, the petitioner had preferred an appeal
before this Court in A.S.(MD)SRNo.96084 of 2024. Since she is a third
party to the proceeding, she has sought for the leave to prefer an appeal,
and the same has been numbered as C.M.P.(MD)No.18964 of 2024.
5.As the proposal with M/s.Vistaar Financial Services Private
Limited fell through, the petitioner approached M/s.Indian Overseas
Bank, W.Pudupatti branch, to raise a loan through a mortgage. She
presented a memorandum of deposit of title deed for registration, but the
first respondent had refused to register the same on the ground that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
second respondent has already filed her objection for any document
being presented by the Writ Petitioner.
6.Prior to considering the objection, the second respondent had
filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17946 of 2024 and this Court by an
order, dated 31.07.2024, disposed of the said Writ Petition by recording
the statement of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the first respondent that the protest petition filed by the second
respondent would be considered and appropriate action will be taken,
when the Writ Petitioner files a document for registration.
7.Challenging the refusal to register her memorandum of deposit
of title deed, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this Writ
Petition.
8.When the Writ Petition came up for admission, I took note of the
order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.17946 of 2024 and suo motu
impleaded, Tmt.Bavani, as a party to this Writ Petition. I adjourned the
matter to enable the Counsel to get instructions. In the meantime,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
Mr.T.Sankara Subramaniam, filed an application to implead himself as a
party to the Writ Petition claiming that he has moved the Debts Recovery
Tribunal at Madurai in I.A.No.259 of 2023 in S.A.SR.No.285 of 2023.
In order to give a complete adjudication to the dispute presented, I
impleaded Mr.T.Sankara Subramaniam as a party to the Writ Petition.
9.I heard Mr.R.Aravindraj, for the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
for the first respondent, Mr.A.Balaji for the second respondent and
Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, for the third respondent.
10.Mr.R.Aravindraj, after narrating the facts of the case, pleads
that there is no bar under the Registration Act and the rules made
thereunder to register the memorandum of deposit of title deed presented
by the petitioner. He states that the second respondent, having executed
a release deed in the year 2013, has no right to seek for partition. He
points out that for the mere fact that the second respondent claims title to
the property, it does not mean that the document presented by the
petitioner for registration should be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
11.Per contra, Mr.A.Balaji, pleads that the second respondent has
been strengthened with a decree in O.S.No.70 of 2022 dated 25.03.2024,
and therefore, no document can be presented, which will adversely affect
her rights.
12.Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, states that the very foundation of the
purchase made by the Writ Petitioner has been challenged by the third
respondent before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Madurai and this
Court by an order, dated 13.02.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.10454 of 2023, had
directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Madurai to dispose of the said
proceedings at an earlier date. He states that if the SARFAESI Appeal is
allowed, the very purchase, that has been made by the petitioner, would
be rendered void and it will only add unnecessary complications, if a
mortgage is created in the meantime.
13.Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, urges that the Sub Registrar has merely
implemented the order passed by this Court and, as there are inter se
disputes between the petitioner, second respondent and the third
respondent, the Sub Registrar has not registered the document presented
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
by the petitioner.
14.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and
gone through the records.
15.It is not in dispute that the Writ Petitioner had purchased the
property in a SARFAESI sale. This SARFAESI sale has not attained
finality, as it has been challenged by the third respondent and his father
by way of a SARFAESI Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Madurai. In the said proceedings, there is no order restraining the Writ
Petitioner from alienating or encumbering the property. Similarly, the
second respondent has presented a suit and has obtained a preliminary
decree for partition. In that proceedings too, there is no interim order or
permanent injunction restraining the Writ Petitioner from alienating or
encumbering the property.
16.The petitioner, having purchased the right of the third
respondent, has also got a sale deed from M/s.City Union Bank on
03.08.2022 and the same was registered in Doc.No.1477 of 2022. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
long as the sale has not been set aside, the petitioner is entitled to reap
the benefits of her purchase. The Sub Registrar cannot decide as to
whom the property belongs. That is a job, which has to be done by this
Court in the regular appeal preferred by the Writ Petitioner. The Sub
Registrar and the respondents No.2 and 3, unless and until, point out a
provision, which enables the Sub Registrar to refuse a document, he is
duty bound to register a document presented by the Writ Petitioner. This
is especially so, when the first respondent has already registered a sale
deed executed in favour of the Writ Petitioner. The Sub Registrar need
not wade into the inter se dispute between the petitioner and the second
respondent, or the petitioner and the third respondent. I am sure that the
second and third respondents are competent to represent their interest
before the Court and Tribunal, respectively, and obtain appropriate orders
before the Tribunal, if they have made out a case.
17.The Sub Registrar seems to have been under an impression that
this Court had directed him to reject the document in W.P.(MD)No.17946
of 2024. In that proceedings, this Court merely recorded the statement of
the Special Government Pleader that the objection would be considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
and appropriate orders will be passed. Consideration of an objection
does not mean that the Sub Registrar can assume the power of a civil
Court and reject a document presented to him, when he is otherwise not
empowered to do so.
18.In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition succeeds;
(1)The impugned order, dated 11.02.2025 is quashed;
(2)There shall be a direction to the first respondent to register the
mortgage deed presented by the Writ Petitioner in favour of M/s.Indian
Overseas Bank;
(3)The mortgage so executed will be subject to the result of the
SARFAESI Appeal preferred by the third respondent and the regular
appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.70 of 2022;
and
(4)No costs.
Index :Yes / No 25.03.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
To
The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Vathirairuppu, Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
cmr
25.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 06:03:56 pm )
