C.Ramasamy v. The Sub Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ & CMP.Nos.18701 & 22545 of 2025
1. C.Ramasamy S/O.Chinna Gounder, 2/114 Reddipatti Katoor, Kurumbapatti, Edappadi Taluk, Salem-637102
2. Manickam S/O.Mani, 5/66, C.Thanamoorthiyur, Kurumbapatti Edapaddi Taluk, Salem637 105 Appellant(s) Vs
1. The Sub Registrar Edappadi, Salem District 2.Mohammed Sheriff S/O.Sheik Hamid, No.105, Bodinayakam, Anai Perur East, Edappadi Taluk, Salem -637 105
Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the order passed by this Court dated 04.04.2025 passed in WP.No.7530 of 2025 and thus render justice.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.M.Santhanaraman For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader for R1 Ms.B.Rathika for R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ petitioners are the appellants herein. The 2 nd respondent herein preferred a writ petition challenging the refusal check slip, dated 05.11.2024 issued by the Sub Registrar, Edapaddi.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the judgement and decree of the year 1963 passed by the Civil Court in OS.No.910 of 1961, dated 15.02.1962 came to be registered in the year 2024 under the Registration Act. The said registration resulted in infringement of civil rights of the appellants. The registration per se is illegal, in view of the fact that the certified copy of the said judgment and decree came to be registered only in the year 2023.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader would oppose by stating that, when there is cloud in respect of title between parties, the Sub Registrar has
no option, but to relegate them to approach the competent Civil Court of law. This being the settled legal position, there is no infirmity in respect of the refusal check slip issued, which is impugned in the writ proceedings.
4. Disputed facts relating to civil rights cannot be decided by the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent would submit that a civil suit in OS.No.52 of 2025 has been instituted on the file of the District Munsif Court, Edapaddi.
5. May that as it be, this Court is of the considered view that, there exist a dispute relating to civil rights between parties. Neither the registering authority nor the High Court in exercise of the powers of the Judicial Review is expected to give any finding, and in the event of any such adjudication or finding, it may result in causing prejudice to anyone of the party. Contrarily, all such disputes are to be adjudicated before the Civil Court based on documents and evidences available on record.
6. However, in the present case, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants may be permitted to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act. It is left open to the appellants to prefer an appeal in the manner contemplated under the Act and Rules framed therein. In the event of preferring of any such statutory appeal, the period during which the writ petition has been pending, is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of condoning the delay and decide the issues on
merits. The appellate authority shall consider the issues independently after providing opportunity to all the parties and pass orders uninfluenced by the observations, if any made on the facts by the Writ Court in its order.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. In view of the order passed in Writ Appeal, no orders needs to be passed in CMP.No.22545 of 2025. Thus, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.) 23-09-2025 gd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.The Sub Registrar Edappadi, Salem District 2.Mohammed Sheriff S/O.Sheik Hamid, No.105, Bodinayakam, Anai Perur East, Edappadi Taluk, Salem -637 105
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
gd 23-09-2025