K.P. Pandiyan v. The Joint I Sub-Registrar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.12.2022 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY K.P.Pandiyan .. Appellant Vs 1 The Joint-I Sub-Registrar Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

2 The District Registrar Kallakurichi.

Shanbagam (Deceased) Viruthambal (Deceased) 3 Kumudha 4 Sampath Kumar 5 Vijayasarathi 6 Meenatchi 7 Bhuvaneswari 8 Abirami 9 Shakthi 10 Janani 11 Mullaikodi 12 Murali 13 Rajeshwari 14 Gurunathan

15 Karunanithi 16 Boopathy 17 Sivagamisundari 18 Somasundaram 19 Thilagavathi 20 Murugan 21 Shankar .. Respondents.

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated dated 5.8.2021 made in W.P.No.21037 of 2014. For the Appellant : Mr.T.V.Ramanujun Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, after advancing emphatic arguments assailing the findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 5.8.2021 passed in W.P.No.21037 of 2014, submitted that even though there is an appeal remedy available to the appellant under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1906, the appellant is afraid to

pursue the appellate remedy for the reason that a concrete finding has been given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph (3) of the order against the appellant as under:

"3. It is seen from the impugned order that the vendors filed suit in OS.No.111 of 2008 for partition as against their brother one, Ganesan. On the strength of the suit averments, they executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the same was presented for registration. Thereafter, the said suit was withdrawn as not pressed by the petitioner's vendors. Therefore, the first respondent rightly refused to register the document for the reason that the vendors failed to prove their title over the property by producing patta and relevant documents. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the writ petition."

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that if this court makes it clear that the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to the title and ownership of the land, no prejudice would be caused to anyone.

3. We find some merit in the aforesaid submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, as the appellant is yet to file an appeal under Section 72 of the Act as against the order dated 3.7.2020 passed by the first respondent and any finding rendered by this court on the merits of the matter will have a bearing while considering the appeal.

4. In such view of the matter, we dispose of the appeal by granting liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the District Registrar under Section 72 of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the appellate authority shall consider the appeal and pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.21230 of 2022 is closed.

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 08.12.2022 Index : No sasi

To:

1 The Joint-I Sub-Registrar Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

2 The District Registrar Kallakurichi.

T.RAJA, ACJ.

AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(sasi) 08.12.2022