Kasi Thennarasu v. District Registrar,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and WMP (MD) Nos.15586, 15588 & 20984 of 2024 Kasi Thennarasu .. Petitioner Vs.
1. District Registrar, Admin, Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Office of District Registrar, Madurai South, Madurai.
2. The Joint Sub Registrar Office of the Joint Sub-Registrar Office No.1, Madurai South, Madurai.
3. S.Sakunthala
4. Muthuvel
5. Jayalakshmi
6. V.S.Krishnakumar .. Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Ceritiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.6336/A2/2021, dated 01.08.2022, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal. 1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan, for R6 : No appearance for R3 to R5
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 01.08.2022, on the file of the 1st respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased an agricultural land measuring western 90 cents in the larger extent of 02 acres and 25 cents, under a sale deed dated 01.10.2021. As such in light of the sale deed and in light of the revenue assessment changed to his name by separate Patta, the petitioner became absolute owner to the property purchased in his name measuring as cents 85 cents, under said Survey No.17/3B was subdivided, wherein a new subdivided patta was issued under Patta No.957, wherein as such his sale deed was acted upon and is in force. While being so, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed later to his sale deed, by impliedly cancelling his sale deed and permitted one V.S.Krishnakumar said to be the son of one S.Sakunthala to encumber over the property which has been purchased by the petitioner. The impugned order is illegal.
2/5
3. Whereas it is the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent/Jeyalakshmi has purchased the larger extent of 02 acres and 25 cents under S.No.17/3, vide sale deed dated 16.07.2021. The 5th respondent has purchased the said extent from one Sakunthala/3rd respondent herein, who alienated her property through her power agent one Muthuvel/4th respondent. Before executing the sale deed executed in his favour, he verified the revenue records. Therefore, he has title over the said property.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. At the outset, the petitioner has purchased the subject property from the original owner. Merely because there is a double entry in respect of subject property, the registration cannot be refused. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.6336/A2/2021, dated 01.08.2022, is hereby quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 08.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Ksa 3/5
To
1. District Registrar, Admin, Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Office of District Registrar, Madurai South, Madurai.
2. The Joint Sub Registrar Office of the Joint Sub-Registrar Office No.1, Madurai South, Madurai.
4/5
S.SRIMATHY , J.
Ksa ORDER MADE IN DATED : 08.08.2025 5/5