Sivaraj vs The Inspector General Of Registration
2025 Latest Caselaw 7606 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7606 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 October, 2025

Madras High Court

Sivaraj vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 7 October, 2025

Author: Krishnan Ramasamy

Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy

                                                                                       WP No. 22213 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 07-10-2025

                                                         CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                               WP No. 22213 of 2025

                Sivaraj
                S/o.Sevanthan,
                Door No.64 Bajanai Madam Street,
                Sendarapatti, Gangavalli Taluk,
                Salem-636 110.                                  Petitioner(s)


                                                              Vs

                1.The Inspector General of Registration,
                No.100, Santhome High Road,
                Pattinampakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram,
                Chennai-600 028.

                2.The District Registrar,
                Salem.

                3.The Sub Reigstrar,
                Office Of The Sub Registrar, Vazhapadi.                      Respondent(s)




                PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

                praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 07:38:23 pm )
                                                                                              WP No. 22213 of 2025


                records on the file of the 3rd respondent pertaining to the refusal check slip

                No.RFL/ VAZHAPADI/ 45/ 2025 dated 19.05.2025 and quash the same and

                consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the Judgment and Decree dated

                24.01.2025 passed in I.A. No.356 of 2016 in O.S. No.83 of 2011 on the file of

                the learned I Additional Sub Court, Salem presented for registration by the

                petitioner vide the Temporary No.in TP/ 219470978/ 2025 dated 19.05.2025.



                                  For Petitioner(s):          Mr.T.Sai Krishnan

                                  For Respondent:             Mr.Abishek Murthy
                                                              Government Advocate


                                                                ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the

rd records on the file of the 3 respondent pertaining to the refusal check slip

No.RFL/ VAZHAPADI/ 45/ 2025 dated 19.05.2025 and quash the same and

rd consequently direct the 3 respondent to register the Judgment and Decree dated

24.01.2025 passed in I.A. No.356 of 2016 in O.S. No.83 of 2011 on the file of

the learned I Additional Sub Court, Salem presented for registration by the

petitioner vide the Temporary No.in TP/ 219470978/ 2025 dated 19.05.2025.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 07:38:23 pm )

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 13.05.2025, the

petitioner presented the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated

24.01.2025 in I.A.No.356 of 2016 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 before the 3rd

respondent for registration. However, the 3rd respondent refused to register the

said judgment and decree vide refusal check slip dated 19.05.2025 stating that

several transaction were done on the subject property before the passing of

judgment and decree and the decree does not contain any declaration as regards

the third parties sale deed. He would further submit that the petitioner intend

only to register the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2025 and the 3rd

respondent need not look into the purchase of property by the third parties

which is also a subject matter of the decree. Hence, he prayed to set aside the

refusal check slip dated 19.05.2025 and direct the 3rd respondent to register the

judgment and decree dated 24.01.2025 presented by the petitioner.

3.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would

submit that since several transactions occurred on the subject property, the 3rd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 07:38:23 pm )

respondent refused to register the same and he would further submit that the

order whichever passed by this Court will be complied with.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

5.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 3rd

respondent, this Court finds force in the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner presented the final decree for

registration, the 3rd respondent ought not to have refused to register the order of

the Court. Though several transactions were done on the subject property before

the passing of judgment and decree, the petitioner has now ultimately obtained a

decree from the Court and by virtue of the same the petitioner is not going to

alienate the property and at any cost, he is entitled to register the same as per

section 18 (cc) of Registration Act, 1908, which is extracted hereunder for better

appreciation:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 07:38:23 pm )

“.......

18 (cc) instruments transferring or assigning any decree

or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or

award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or

extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or

interest, whether vested or contingent, of a value less than one

hundred rupees, to or in immovable property.”

6.A reading of the above provision would show that the 3rd respondent

supposed to have registered the judgment and decree instead he is sticking on

the earlier transactions pertaining to the subject property. If the right of any

other parties are affected by the judgment and decree presented by the

petitioner, it is for the affected parties to agitate the same before Civil Court and

now the petitioner's right of registering the judgment and decree cannot be

denied.

7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned

refusal check slip dated 19.05.2025 and accordingly, the same is set aside. The

3rd respondent is directed to register the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 07:38:23 pm )

made in I.A.No.356 of 2016 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 on the file of the learned I