Madras High Court
Logeshmuthu vs The Sub Registrar on 26 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.6565 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.6565 of 2025
Logeshmuthu ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
No.1, Joint Sub Registrar Office,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Dindigul District.
(R2 is suo motu impleaded vide
order dated 12.03.2025)
... 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 on the file of the respondent issued with an impugned refusal
check slip vide in the proceedings in No. RFL/1 No. Joint Sub Registrar,
Virudhunagar/3/2025 dated 26.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal
arbitrary and consequently directing the respondent to register and
release the petitioner sale deed in regard to the petitioner's house
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.6565 of 2025
property in Survey No.101/5A1A1, Patta No.161, Plot No.31 to an extent
of 1344 sq.ft situated at Sri Balaji Nagar, Alagapuri, Virudhunagar
District within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Sankar
For R1 :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.M.Karunanithi
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the first
respondent in the proceedings in No.RFL/1 No.Joint Sub Registrar,
Virudhunagar/3/2025 dated 26.02.2025, to quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary and consequently, to direct the first respondent to register and
release the petitioner's sale deed with regard to the petitioner's house
property in S.No.101/5A1A1, Patta No.161, Plot No.31, to an extent of
1344 sq.ft, situated at Sri Balaji Nagar, Alagapuri, Virudhunagar District.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the property
situated at Plot No.31 in S.No.101/5A1A1 at Sri Balaji Nagar, Alagapuri,
Virudhunagar District, from one Nagajothi, W/o.Balavignesh on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
13.12.2022. The sale is evidenced by a registered document on the file of
the first respondent in Doc.No.4754 of 2022. On the strength of the
purchase, the petitioner mutated the revenue records in his favour and
had also put up a construction over the same.
3.The petitioner states that one Nagarajan, S/o. Chinnapandi,
approached him for purchasing the aforesaid property. The petitioner
agreed to alienate the same and also executed a sale deed on 26.02.2025.
When the same was presented for registration, the impugned refusal
check slip was issued on the ground that the petitioner has to get a 'No
Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the second respondent. Hence, this
writ petition.
4.When the matter came up for admission, I requested
Mr.M.Karunanithi to take notice for the second respondent and I
adjourned the matter. Today, the second respondent has filed a counter
affidavit and I took up the writ petition for final disposal.
5.I heard Mr.K.Sankar for the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate for the second
respondent.
6.According to Mr.Sankar, the petitioner's vendor’s mother,
Muthumari had settled the property in favour of her daughter, Nagajothi
by way of a registered settlement deed in Doc.No.3290 of 2021 dated
15.09.2021. Soon thereafter, the property had been alienated in favour of
the writ petitioner. He states that the petitioner has nothing to do with
Nagajothi's or her mother, Muthumari's business dealings. He pleads that
the letter issued by the second respondent to the first respondent is illegal
and that the police cannot issue letters, restraining the first respondent
from registering documents with respect to alienation of the property.
7.Mr.Karunanithi, on referring to the counter affidavit filed by the
second respondent, urges that the transaction between Muthumari to
Nagajothi and Nagajothi to the writ petitioner, Logeshmuthu is not in
dispute. However, he adds that Muthumari is an accused in Crime No.5
of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 120(b), 406, 420 IPC
and Section 5 of TNPID Act on the file of the second respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
He states that the vendor of the petitioner, Nagajothi and the husband of
Muthumari, Subramanian are also accused in the said criminal
proceedings.
8.He pleads that the accused were running a finance business
under the name and style of ‘Arrusha Gold and Diamond Jewellery’ and
also a chit fund. They had collected several deposits from the public to
the tune of Rs.123,54,21,923/- and did not return the same. Hence, it
resulted in lodging of the complaint. Mr.Karunanithi further urges that in
order to prevent further registration of the properties, which belongs to
the accused, the Inspector of Police had sent a letter to the District
Registrar, Virudhunagar, not to register any documents.
9.Mr.Karunanithi relies upon the order of this Court in
Shanmuganathan and another Vs. The Joint Sub Registrar,
Aruppukottai and another, W.P.(MD) No.16603 of 2024, dated
28.01.2025 to press home this point.
10.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I
have gone through the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
11.In order to invoke the power under Section 22B(3) of the
Registration Act, 1908, there should be an order passed by the competent
authority under a Central or a State Act or an order of attachment should
have been passed by a Court or Tribunal. The police are not empowered
under any of the legislation to attach an asset by way of a letter.
12.This Court has consistently held that the police do not have the
power to restrain a Sub Registrar from receiving documents by writing
letters. This position has been laid down in the following cases:-
“(i) R.Madhupriya and another Vs. Inspector General of
Registration and another, 2020 SCC OnLine Madras 20112,
(ii) K.Arasu and others Vs. The Sub Registrar,
Perunthurai, Erode District and another in W.P.No.30874 of
2018 dated 28.04.2022 and
(iii) Subramani Vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram and
another, (2024) 3 MLJ 588.”
13.Though the power is available to the police in terms of
Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance of 1944 and Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act,
1997, to move the Courts and obtain orders of attachment, they seldom
follow that route to prevent alienation. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
in Madhupriya's case clearly held that there cannot be a direction by the
police to the Registration Department not to register documents. He had
further observed that in case, the police wants to prevent a property from
being alienated, which they consider as proceeds of crime, then they have
to approach the Court or the competent authority for the purpose of
securing orders of attachment. It is only in such circumstances that the
Sub Registrar is bound to take note of the orders of attachment passed by
the competent authority/Court/Tribunal and refuse registration.
14.Insofar as the judgment in Shanmuganathan and another Vs.
The Joint Sub Registrar, Aruppukottai and another, W.P.(MD) No.
16603 of 2024, dated 28.01.2025 is concerned, the learned Judge did not
go into the issue as to whether the police have the power to issue letters
and thereby, restrain the Sub Registrar from registering the documents.
This issue has been specifically dealt with by the 3 cases set forth earlier
in the earlier part of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
15.In the light of the above discussion, I am not in a position to
sustain the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
There shall be a direction to the first respondent to register the document
presented by the writ petitioner in favour of Nagarajan on 26.02.2025
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. This order will not stand in the way of the police to move the
TNPID Court and secure orders of attachment in the pending O.A.No.7
of 2025. No costs.
Index :Yes / No 26.03.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
mm
To
1.The Sub Registrar,
No.1, Joint Sub Registrar Office,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mm
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:26:01 pm )
