W.A.No.3678 of 2024
---------------------------
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No. 3678 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.29108 of 2024
R.Anbazhagi ...Appellant
Vs.
1.L.Chinnathambi
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Kallakurichi District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Vadakkanandal SRO Office,
Kallakurichi District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying to allow the above Writ Appeal and consequently set aside the
orderd dated 22.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.34247 of 2024.
For Appellant : Ms.R.Divyapreahika
For Respondents: Mr.V.Manohar
For Mr.T.Balachandran for R1
Mr.U.Baranidharan, Spl.GP for R2 & R3
****
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 22.11.2024 passed in
W.P.No.34247 of 2024.
2. The 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant before
this Court. The 1st respondent Mr.L.Chinnathambi presented a sale deed
for registration before the 3rd respondent under the Registration Act. The
3rd respondent after scrutiny passed the order dated 24.06.2024
returning the document on the ground that there are discrepancies in the
description of the schedule of properties between the documents
presented and the title document. The sub-Registrar has stated that in
the document presented, the boundaries indicate North by Thar Road;
South by Odai; East by VAO Office & Sevai Maiyam and West by
Anbazhagi Vagaiyara's land. However, in the original title deed the
registering Authority found the description in the schedule as North by
Road; South by Remaining land in Survey No.189/7C; East by
Anbazhagiammal's land and West by Latchumanan's land. In view of
the said discrepancy, he returned the document asking the presentent of
the document to correct the boundaries and present it enabling him to
register the document by following the procedure. The 1st respondent
instead of correcting has chosen to file the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
3. The writ Court allowed the Writ Petition by accepting the
description stated in the schedule of the document presented for
registration.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the writ
Court has erroneously considered the boundaries, which is otherwise
found to be wrong by the registering Authority. In order to clarify the said
position, the appellant has furnished the details in the form of an index,
which reads as under:
S. Vendor Purchaser Date, Document Four Boundaries
No. No., Survey No.
and Extent
1 Sadaiyan Anbazhagi 14.12.1987, North by : Road
(Appellant) 1716 of 1987, South by : Thirthagounder's
– Sale Deed S.No.189/7C land
0.63 cents East by : Tharisu Land
West by : Rest of teh land of
teh vendor and purchaser
2 Sadaiyan Kalaivani – 26.02.1988, North by : Road
Sale Deed 261 of 1988, Southy by : Odai,
S.No.189/7C East by : Anbazhagiammal's
0.62 cents land
West by : Latchumanan's
land
3 Kalaivani Anbazhagi 27.04.1988, South by : Odai,
(Appellant) 644 of 1988, East &
– Sale Deed S.No.189/7C North by : Purchaser's land
0.02 cents West by : Andigounder's land
4 Kalaivani Andi Konnar – 27.04.1988, North by : Road
Sale Deed 643 of 1988, South by : Odai
S.No.189/7C East by : Anbazhagiammal's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
0.60 cents land
West by : Latchumanan's
land
5 Subburayan – Subburayan – 04.09.2008, North by : Road
Sale Deed Sale Deed 1519 of 2008, South by : Odai
S.No.189/7C East by : Anbazhagiammal's
60 cents land
West by : Latchumanan's
land
6 Suburayan 1.Ranjith 02.02.2011, North by : Road
(Advocate) 119 of 2011, South by : Ramaining land in
2.Senthil S.No.189/7C Survey No.189/7C
Kumar 60 cents East by : Anbazhagiammal's
(Advocate) land
-Sale Deed West by : Latchumanan's
land
7 1.Ranjith Chinnathambi 07.11.2023, North by : Thar Road
(Advocate) (1st 3239 of 2023, South by : Odai
2.Senthil Respondent) S.No.189/7C East by : VAO Office & Sevai
Kumar – Sale Deed 60 cents Maiyam
(Advocate) West by : Anbazhagi
Vagaiyara's land
5. The correct description of the schedule as per the original title
deed is stated in Sl.No.6. Accordingly, the boundaries are North by
Road; South by Remaining land in Survey No.189/7C; East by
Anbazhagiammal's land and West by Latchumanan's land. However,
the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis of the details of
description stated in Sl.No.7, which is not in consonance with the original
title deed as verified by the registering Authority.
6. May that as it be, the discrepancy identified between the original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
title deed and the documents presented for registration can be
ascertained by the registering Authority. In the event of any doubt, error
or dispute, the parties have to explain the position before the registering
Authority and if it is not resolved, then approach the competent civil
Court of law for the purpose of settling the issue. Contrarily the writ
Court cannot adjudicate the disputed issues of this nature. In the event
of any error in the description of the schedule in the document presented
for registration, it will result in infringement of civil rights of the parties.
Therefore, the writ Court has to exercise restraint in interfering with such
matters, where the registering Authorities found that there are some
discrepancies in the description of schedule in the original title deed as
well as in the document presented for registration.
7. In the event of accepting the contention of any one of the parties
without verifying the original records, it may result in causing prejudice to
either of the parties. That apart, such errors in the documents cannot be
rectified by filing a writ proceeding nor the High court in exercise of the
powers of judicial review can exercise such powers.
8. That being so, the appellant and the 1st respondent are at liberty
to appear before the registering Authority and clarify the correct position.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
If the registering Authority is unable to form a final opinion regarding the
correct description of the property and if any doubt exists, then the
parties are to be relegated to approach the competent civil Court of law
for resolving the issues.
9. With these clarifications, the impugned writ order dated
22.11.2024 made in W.P.No.34247 of 2024 is set aside and the Writ
Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
15.09.2025
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To:
1.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Kallakurichi District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Vadakkanandal SRO Office,
Kallakurichi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
---------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
dsa
15.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 01:15:09 pm )
