S.Alice Rahini v. P.Sivakumar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:05.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN WA(MD)No.323 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.2512, 2424 and 15393 of 2025 S.Alice Rahini ... Appellant/3rd Party Vs.

1.P.Sivakumar ...1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Swamy Sannathi Street, Sathankulam, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District-628 704 ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.166 of 2025. For Petitioners : Mr.E.V.N.Siva, for Mr.A.Ajith Geethan For R1 : Mr.Saji Chellan for Mr.S.Jayakumar For R2 : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) Leave was granted to the third party to challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.166 of 2025, dated 06.01.2025, taking into consideration that there is an attempt by the writ petitioner to register a sale deed beyond the title conferred on the vendor under the preliminary decree passed in O.A.No.20 of 2021 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchendur.

2.After notice to the writ appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the sale deed presented its only as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.20 of 2021 and the registration is required to be registered though the sale deed entered prior to the passing of the preliminary degree.

3.From the submission made by the learned counsel, we find that the apprehension of the appellant is that the document entered between the father of the writ petitioner and his buyer long prior to the preliminary is not inconsonance with the preliminary decree. Hence, he is before this Court to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, while examining the order of the learned single Judge, the operative portion of the

order reads as below:

"5.On perusal of the sale deed, which was already presented for registration, it clears that the petitioner's father had purchased only 3/5th share in the subject property. Therefore, the respondent can very well register the undivided share of the petitioner's vendors in favour of the petitioner as per the preliminary decree.

6.In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to represent the sale deed for registration before the respondent and on receipt of the same, the petitioner is directed to register the undivied share of the subject property as per the preliminary decree passed in re-numbered suit in OS.No.20 of 2021, on the file of the Sub-Court, Thiruchendur, Tuticorin District."

4.We find that the Sub-Registrar, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District, is directed to register the undivided share of the subject property as per the preliminary decree passed in renumbered suit in O.S.No.20 of 2021. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant has no basis. 5.We have no doubt that the Sub-Registrar, Thoothukudi District, will ensure to register the document which is not inconsonance with the preliminary decree passed in renumbered suit in O.S.No.20 of 2021 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchendur. We also have to add that such registration

shall ever be subjected to the passing of the preliminary decree and once the final decree is passed in the above said suit, it shall be merged with the preliminary decree.

6.With this clarification, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 05.12.2025 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes Ns To The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Swamy Sannathi Street, Sathankulam, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District-628 704

DR.

G. JAYACHANDRAN , J.

AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Ns WA(MD)No.323 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.2512, 2424 and 15393 of 2025 05.12.2025