← Library
Madras High CourtWP/19842/2018dismissed

Karunalayam, v. District Registrar,

2025-09-01Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.19842 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.23297 of 2018 Karunalayam .....

Petitioner Vs

1. District Registrar, Coimbatore.

2. Joint Sub Registrar, Coimbatore.

.....

Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 06.07.2018 in Number 2/2018 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to take into record and register the compromise decree dated 10.10.2017 made in I.A.No.965/2017 in O.S.No.1276/2017 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.Vishnu Prasad For Respondents : Mr.Abhishek Murthy Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.07.2018 passed by the second respondent, thereby rejected the request made by the petitioner for registration of the compromise decree dated 10.10.2017 made in I.A.No.965 of 2017 in O.S.No.1276 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no instruction from the petitioner.

4. A perusal of the records and the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent reveals that the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Town Survey number was not mentioned in the schedule of the property. Further, the decree did not specify whether the boundaries of the subject property were clearly stated, nor was the proper village mentioned. Further, the other registered

documents in respect of the very same property have already been registered. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to clarify these discrepancies. Further, it reveals that the respondent cannot conduct an enquiry in respect of the title over the property. But by virtue of the said decree by obtaining a collusive manner amongst the parties, it allowed to be registered, the same would only lead to further litigation by persons who are already holding title based on the documents registered earlier.

5. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 06.07.2018 passed by the second respondent. Thus, the writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

01.09.2025 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp To

1. District Registrar, Coimbatore.

2. Joint Sub Registrar, Coimbatore.

01.09.2025