Pasumai Kathiresan v. Kaliraj

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN WA.(MD)No.353 of 2026 and CMP.(MD)No.3268 of 2026 Pasumai Kathiresan ... Appellant Vs.

1.Kaliraj 2.The District Registrar Virudhunagar Registration District Virudhunagar District.

3.The Sub Registrar Panthakudi. Virudhunagar District.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Aruppukkottai Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order passed in WP.(MD)No.3563 of 2026 dated 09.02.2026. For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R2 to R4 : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader.

1/5

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The third party has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition quashing the refusal slip issued by the third respondent. 2.The main contention of the appellant is that the property has been purchased by the petitioner's father for himself in the year 1982 vide document in Doc.No.1245/1982. Suppressing the same, the first respondent has presented a document of sale with regard to the very same property. It is the further contention that after 40 years of such sale, the legal heirs of the vendors filed a suit challenging the sale in O.S.No.136 of 2021 and the plaint of the said suit has been rejected by this Court, vide order dated 17.02.2025 in CRP.(MD)Nos.143 & 144 of 2024. However, suppressing the said aspect, once again, a document has been presented for registration by the first respondent. 3.In fact, the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the document presented by the first respondent clearly recording the fact that 2/5

the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was registered as early as on 28.12.1982 and also the rejection of the plaint filed as against the vendors of the petitioners. The learned Single Judge, without considering all these factual aspect, has set aside the said refusal check slip.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that now in a hurried manner, the document presented by the first respondent has been registered yesterday, ie., 10.03.2026, pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar concerned.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6.We are of the opinion that mere registration of a document will not confer any absolute title over the property. The title is always subject to the rights, which is to be established before the civil Court by producing valid material evidences. Therefore, the appellant is directed to work out remedy to cancel registration of the document presented by 3/5

the first respondent in manner known to law. It is needless to add that there shall be no further alienation of the subject property until the rights of the first respondent is established before the Court of law. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 11.03.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes GNS To 1.The District Registrar Virudhunagar Registration District Virudhunagar District.

2.The Sub Registrar Panthakudi. Virudhunagar District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Aruppukkottai Virudhunagar District.

4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

GNS WA.(MD)No.353 of 2026 11.03.2026 5/5