T.Thiyagavarman v. The District Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.Thiyagavarman ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar District Registrars Office, Original Document Section, Salem West, Salem District-636 001.

2. The Joint Sub Registrar-i, Salem West, Salem District-636 001.

... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondents to register and release the sale deed dated 03.10.2012 executed in O.S. No.57/2007 and E.P. No.59/2010 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Court Salem, in the names of the legal heirs of Late.R. Thiruvengadam (the petitioner and his family) within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court, and consider the representation dated 13.08.2025 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Kumar For Respondent : Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to register and release the sale deed dated 03.10.2012 executed in O.S. No.57/2007 and E.P. No.59/2010 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Court Salem, in the names of the legal heirs of Late.R. Thiruvengadam (the petitioner and his family) within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court, and consider the representation dated 13.08.2025.

2. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this 2/6

case, the petitioner's father was paralysed in the year 2013 and thereafter, he passed away in the year 2017. The petitioner, who is the only legal heir of his father, was not aware of the execution of sale deed 03.10.2012. He came to know about the said aspect only in the year 2024. Hence, he filed this petition.

5. In reply, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent would submit that in this case, the sale deed was executed vide the order passed in EP.No.59/2010 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Court Salem. Hence, he would submit that the only recourse available to the petitioner is to challenge the Execution Petition before the concerned Court. Thus, he requests this Court for dismissal of this petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, the sale deed was executed vide the order 3/6

passed in EP.No.59/2010 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Court Salem. In such case, as rightly contended by the respondent, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the said execution, he is supposed to have challenge the same in the manner known to law. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any force in the submission made by the petitioner and hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost. 12.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa To 4/6

1. The District Registrar District Registrars Office, Original Document Section, Salem West, Salem District-636 001.

2. The Joint Sub Registrar-i, Salem West, Salem District-636 001.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa 12.09.2025 6/6