Madras High Court
S.Suriyanarayanan vs The District Registrar on 26 March, 2025
W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Petition(MD)No.3225 of 2025
S.Suriyanarayanan
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Registrar,
Registrar Office Campus,
St. Marks Street,
Sankar Colony,
Palayankkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
The Pettai Sub Registrar Office,
Tirunelveli.
3. Sabara Banu,
(R3 is Impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 20.2.2025 in
WMP(MD).2440/25)
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the
second respondent to delete the entry made in Encumbrance
Certificate in Serial No.5 of subject to the Document No.2031/2008
dated 07.05.2008 pertaining to the house property situated at Survey
No.TS992 at New Door No.188, Ward No.1, Block No.6, Vinai Theertha
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025
Vinayagar Kovil Street, Pettai, Tirunelveli District on the base of the
petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2024 within a stipulated time
of period fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul
For Respondents : Mr.R. Suresh Kumar,
Addl. Govt. Prosecutor
(for R1 and R2)
No appearance (for R3)
ORDER
The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct
the second respondent to delete the entry made in the Encumbrance
Certificate in Serial No.5 of Document No.2031/2008 dated
07.05.2008, pertaining to the house property comprised in Survey
No.T.S.No.992 at New Door No.188, Ward No.1, Block No.6, Vinai
Theertha Vinayagar Kovil Street, Pettai, Tirunelveli District.
2. The above mentioned property was the subject matter of a
partition suit in O.S.No.49 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub
Judge, Tirunelveli. The said proceedings was initiated by the following
persons:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
(1) Esakkiammal
(2) Janakiraman
(3) Thangam
against
(1) Sankaravadivammal
(2) Murugesh
(3) Sankar
(4) Sanmugam Pillai
(5) Surya Narayanan
The relief sought for in the suit was for partition and separate
possession. The only contesting respondent in the suit was one
Sankar. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, decreed the
suit on 13.06.2011. He passed the following decree:
“1. jhth nrhj;jpy; thjpfs; jyh 1/18 gq;F (3/18
gq;F) ghfk; gphp;j;Jf; nfhs;tjw;F jPh;g;ghiz
toq;fg;gLfpwJ.
2. 5Mk; vjph;thjp 5/9 gq;F (10/18 gq;F) ghfk;
gphpj;Jf;nfhs;tjw;F jPh;g;ghiz toq;fg;gLfpwJ.
3. tpUg;gKs;s jug;gpdh;fs; Mizah; epakdk;
nra;J nrhj;jpid gphptpid nra;Jnfhs;s ,Wjpepiy
jPhg
; ;ghizf;F kD jhf;fy; nra;a tof;fhdJ
fhytiuaiwapd;wp xj;jp itf;fg;gLfpwJ.
4. tof;fpw;fhd mtuth; nryTj;njhifia
mtuth;fNs Vw;Wf;nfhs;s Ntz;Lk;.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
3. The third defendant Sankar, being aggrieved over the
judgment and decree, preferred an appeal to the file of the III
Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S.No.78 of 2012. The
learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal on
17.06.2016.
4. It is the plea of the counsel for the petitioner in this writ
petition that no further appeal had been preferred against the
judgment and decree, and therefore, it has become final. Earlier to
this proceedings, the third defendant had alienated the property by
way of a registered sale deed in favour of his wife, Sabara Banu. This
was by way of a registered document in Doc. No.2031/2008 dated
07.05.2008.
5. The petitioner herein had purchased the aforesaid property
from all the plaintiffs and the defendants Mr.Sankar. He took the
final decree application along with the plaintiffs in I.A.No.64/2012.
The learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, appointed an Advocate
Commissioner, and ordered the final decree. In the final decree, the
following order was passed:
“1) that the Petition is hereby allowed and final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
decree is passed in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
2) that the petitioner is allotted entire suit
schedule property which was demarcated as brown
washed portion in the Commissioner's plan to the share
of the 4th petitioner/5th defendant.
3) that the property allotted above shall vest in
the 4th petitioner for and in full satisfaction of his 14/18
share.
4) that the 4th petitioner is directed to deposit a
sum of Rs.1,08,333/- within two months from today,
being the ovalty amount arrived at by the Commissioner
which shall be paid to the 3rd respondent/3rd defendant
towards his 4/18 share.
5) that the report of the Commissioner and plan
filed by the Commissioner do form part of the final
decree and be appended.”
6. Subsequently, the petitioner also registered the final decree
with the second respondent on 07.09.2023 in Doc. No.4022/2023.
When he filed an application for Encumbrance Certificate for the
aforesaid property, it continued to reflect the sale made by the third
respondent in favour of his wife Sabara Banu. Hence, he gave a
representation on 17.11.2024 to the second respondent to delete any
reference to the sale. As there was no tangible action at the hands of
the second respondent, he has come forward with the present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
petition.
7. When the matter came up for admission, I noticed that
Mrs.Sabara Banu has not been made as a party to the writ petition.
Therefore, I suo motu impleaded her as the third respondent to the
writ petition and issued notice to her.
8. At the time of admission, Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned
Additional Government Pleader, took notice for the respondents 1 and
9. I heard Mr.K.Gokul for the petitioner, and
Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the
respondents 1 and 2. Though notice has been served on the third
respondent, none appears for her.
10. Mr.K.Gokul, after narrating the facts of the case, pleads that
on account of the entry in the Encumbrance Certificate of the sale
made by the third defendant in favour of his wife, there is a cloud over
the petitioner's title, and hence, he has come forward with the present
writ petition, seeking deletion of the said entry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
11.Per contra, Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional
Government Pleader, states that there is no provision under the
Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder to delete an entry
that has already been entered in the Register.
12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of both
sides, and I have gone through the records.
13. The alienation by the third defendant in the suit in favour of
the third respondent herein was for the entire extent of the property in
the aforesaid survey number. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.49 of
2010 came to be presented as stated above. A preliminary decree was
passed, and in appeal, it has been confirmed. In the final decree, the
entire property has been allotted to the writ petitioner and his
vendors. This shows that the decree of the court has vested the
property with the writ petitioner. On the strength of the final decree,
the petitioner has also initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.87 of
2020, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, and the writ
petitioner has also taken possession of the property. This shows that
not only the court has declared the share of the petitioner's vendor,
but it has also allotted this share to the petitioner's vendor and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
thereby, to the petitioner himself and has also effected delivery of the
property and handed over the possession to the petitioner.
14. That being the situation, the presence of the sale deed
executed much prior to the decree of the civil court would not in any
way affect the right of the petitioner, who has obtained the property by
resorting to proper legal proceedings. Hence, the fear of Mr.K.Gokul
that the petitioner has no title to the property is unfounded. The
existence of the prior encumbrance stands nullified by virtue of the
sale deed made by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 4 in
favour of the writ petitioner and also by the registration of the
judgment and decree on 07.09.2023. The document is of the year
2008 and the final decree has been registered in the year 2023.
Therefore, the fear of the petitioner that there might be some cloud on
the title on account of the 2008 sale deed is a misapprehension.
15. I agree with the submission of Mr.R.Sureshkumar that there
is no provision of law to enable the respondents 1 and 2 to delete the
entry already made. Therefore, the prayer sought for in this writ
petition cannot be granted.
16. With the observations set forth above, this writ petition is
dismissed. No costs.
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes
skn
To
1.The District Registrar,
Registrar Office Campus,
St. Marks Street,
Sankar Colony,
Palayankkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
The Pettai Sub Registrar Office,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
skn
Writ Petition(MD)No.3225 of 2025
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 06:23:27 pm )
