Senthil v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Senthil ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Sub Registrar, Joint - II Sub Registrar's Office, Karaikudi, 2.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, (Crime No.1 of 2024) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to register the document dated 02.07.2025 presented by the petitioner in Temporary No.TP/226091629/2025 within a stipulated time fixed by this Court by overruling the objection raised by the second respondent vide letter dated 30.09.2024.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate for R.1 Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R.2

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner has purchased the petition mentioned plot of land from one Sivagami vide Document No.3099 of 2025 dated 02.04.2025. The petitioner now wants to sell the property to a third party. When the document was presented for registration, the registering authority declined to entertain the same. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed for directing the first respondent to accept the document for registration.

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Sivagangai District submitted that the property was originally purchased by one financial establishment 2/6

known as M/s.Trueway Business Services Private Limited. The said company committed default. Hence, Crime No.1 of 2024 was registered under various provisions including Section 5 of the TNPID (F&B ) Act, 1997. The said company had subsequently transferred the property in favour of one Manikandan vide Document No.1770 of 2024 dated 23.02.2024. The said Manikandan sold the property in favour of one Sivagami vide Document No.3469 of 2024 dated 24.04.2024. 4.The learned Government Advocate submitted that since the interest of depositors are involved, this Court may not grant the relief sought for.

5.The opposition of the learned Government Advocate is founded more in morality than in law. My attention is drawn to the decision reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 20112 (R.Madhupriya & another Vs Inspector General of Registration & another). It was held therein that refusal of registration of documents merely based on letters issued by the Police unless a proper order of attachment is obtained from the competent authority under the relevant enactment is impermissible. It 3/6

was held therein that the jurisdictional Police cannot prevent the executant of a document from submitting a document for registration. 6.As on date, the petition mentioned property has not been attached under any of the provisions of law. In this view of the matter, the first respondent is directed to accept the petition mentioned registration and release the same subject to the fulfilment of the other usual formalities.

7.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

03.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To 1.The Sub Registrar, Joint - II Sub Registrar's Office, Karaikudi, 4/6

2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, 5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA 03.09.2025 6/6