P.Ramasubramaniyan v. The Sub-Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN P.Ramasubramaniyan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Sub-Registrar, Thuraiyur Sub-Registrar Office, Ariyalur Registration Circle, Trichy District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Mannarpuram, Trichy District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to register the document dated 25.06.2025 in Token No.D-409 on the file of the 1st respondent within the time frame as fixed by this Court.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jothiraj For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Spl. Government Pleader for R1.

Mr.A.Albert James, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2.

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner had purchased the petition mentioned property from one Sivabalan and Saraswathi vide sale deed dated 13.04.2022. It was registered as Document No.2791/2022. The petitioner now wants to sell the same in favour of one Sumathi and Selvi. He had executed sale deed dated 25.06.2025. It was also presented for registration. But the registering authority had declined to register the document in view of receipt of objection from the second respondent. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the decision reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 20112 (Madupriya Vs. Inspector of General of Registration). It was held therein that the 2/6

registering authority cannot decline to register a document merely on the basis of letter from the police. It is made clear that proper order of attachment must have been obtained from the competent authority under the relevant enactment. In this case, the property in question had not been attached till date. Therefore, the first respondent cannot decline to register the document. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the document. It shall be registered and released by the first respondent subject to fulfilment of the other usual formalities. 4.The matter cannot rest there. The person from whom the petitioner purchased the property is an accused in a case arising under TNPID Act, 1997. Crime No.1 of 2021 was registered by the second respondent against seven accused under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. The case has been charge sheeted and taken on file in C.C.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) states that the case involves, there are seven accused and 136 depositors and the amount involved is to the tune of rupees more than five Crores. 3/6

6.Cases such as this deserve to be fast-tracked. It is not necessary that all the 136 depositors should be examined. It is enough if some of the depositors are examined and the quantum involved can be brought out either through the investigation officer or through some employees of the financial establishment. It is not necessary that every depositors receipt must be marked only through concerned depositor. The original receipt can also be marked through the investigation officer. Let the Special Judge expedite the proceedings and conclude trial itself on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.This writ petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. 12.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias 4/6

To:

1.The Sub-Registrar, Thuraiyur Sub-Registrar Office, Ariyalur Registration Circle, Trichy District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Mannarpuram, Trichy District.

Copy to:

The Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai.

5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias 12.09.2025 6/6