P.V.Neela @ Jayalakshmi v. The District Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.05.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Mrs.P.V.Neela @ Jayalakshmi

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The District Registrar, O/o.The District Registrar, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Veppanapalli Sub Registrar Office, Krishnagiri District.

3.V.Narasimman 4.V.Govindarajulu

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2 to pass a detailed order in the petitioner's objection petition dated 14.04.2025 based on the order passed by the Respondent No.1 in Oo.Mu.No.2320/Aa3/2025 dated 21.04.2025 within a stipulated time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

1/6

For Petitioner :

Mr.B.M.Subash For Respondents :

Mr.V.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader (For R1 & R2)

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the second respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner dated 14.04.2025 based on the orders passed by the first respondent dated 21.04.2025.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he got a share in the properties through a Partition Deed dated 25.07.2016 in Document No.1773 of 2016 and the third and fourth respondents, who are the private parties, are also parties to the Deed.

3. It is his further contention that since there was an error in the document, the private respondents taking advantage of the same, filed a suit in O.S.No.274 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Krishnagiri, seeking for a Mandatory Injunction and the Sub Court, by 2/6

order dated 08.11.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023, has dismissed the Interlocutory Application. However, the said suit is pending. In the meantime, since the private respondents sought to create further Encumbrance, they have submitted an objection petition to the second respondent on 07.04.2025 and 14.04.2025 and on consideration of the same, the second respondent by order dated 08.04.2025, had rejected the objections against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the first respondent and the first respondent by order dated 21.04.2025, had issued a direction to the second respondent to pass a speaking order.

4. Now the petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to the second respondent to take action pursuant to the directions of the first respondent.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that since already a direction has been issued by the first respondent, the second respondent will act pursuant to the same and a detailed speaking order will be passed. 3/6

6. Considering the rival submissions and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass a speaking order on the representation given by the petitioner on 21.04.2025, consequent to the directions issued by the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.

09.05.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order kak 4/6

To 1.The District Registrar, O/o.The District Registrar, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Veppanapalli Sub Registrar Office, Krishnagiri District.

5/6

G.ARUL MURUGAN.J., kak 09.05.2025 6/6