Sivasubramanian v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Sivasubramanian ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Registrar, Trichirappalli District, Cantonment, Trichirappalli.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Mannachanallur Sub-Registrar's Office, Mannachanallur, Trichirappalli District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip passed by the 2nd respondent herein, dated 16.04.2025, in RFL/Mannachanallur/113/2025 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to register the decree passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, in O.S.No. 266 of 2018, dated 07.09.2023, assigned with TP/216663298/2025 on the file of 2nd respondent, which was presented by the petitioner in accordance with law within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Kathiravan For Respondents : Mr.S.Saji Bino Special Government Pleader 1/5

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned refusal check slip passed by the 2nd respondent herein dated 16.04.2025 in RFL/Mannachanallur/113/2025 and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to register the decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, Lalgudi in O.S.No.266 of 2018 dated 07.09.2023 assigned with TP/216663298/2025 on the file of 2nd respondent, which was presented by the petitioner in accordance with law within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2. It is seen that the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.266 of 2018 against one Vasantha for injunction. The petitioner's predecessor was entitled to an extent of 1.59 acres out of 2.85 acres and the petitioner had purchased the same through sale deed dated 02.04.2018. The said Vasantha's father had purchased the remaining 1.16 acres. When there was trespass in the petitioner property, the petitioner had filed the suit for injunction and the said suit was allowed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking to register the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner and the same was refused.

3. It is seen that the respondents have stated that the petitioner had obtained injunction decree alone. The said injunction decree will not have any 2/5

impact in the entry and will not change the entry made in the register. Consequently, the petitioner will not have any right over the property and hence judgement & decree are not suitable for registration.

4. On perusing the reasons stated in the impugned order, this Court is astonished to see such an order of rejection. The petitioner is seeking to register the injunction judgment and decree so that the same would reflect in the encumbrance. The respondents cannot valuate the benefits of such registration, hence such reasoning of the respondents is atrocious.

5. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to register the decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, Lalgudi in O.S.No.266 of 2018 dated 07.09.2023 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

24.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Tmg 3/5

To

1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai.

2. The Executive Engineer, Tirunelveli Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anbu Nagar, Tirunelveli.

4/5

S.SRIMATHY , J.

Tmg ORDER MADE IN DATED : 24.06.2025 5/5