Malaiyadiyan v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.31724 of 2025 Malaiyadiyan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.

3.Ramakrishnan 4.Vaijayanthi Mala 5.Murugan 6.V.Shanmuganathan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second 1/6

respondent to register the petitioner's sale deed dated 14.10.2025 filed before him dated 23.10.2025 for the third respondent's properties bearing Survey Nos.90/3B, 90/3C, 91/4, 87/6, 87/1, 91/1A1, 87/5, 91/3, 91/2A1 - Patta Nos.569 ^ 614, situated at Anmaiperukki Revenue Village, Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District and release the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the second respondent to register the petitioner's sale deed dated 14.10.2025 filed before him dated 23.10.2025 for the third respondent's properties bearing Survey Nos.90/3B, 90/3C, 91/4, 87/6, 87/1, 91/1A1, 87/5, 91/3, 91/2A1 - Patta Nos.569 & 614, situated at Anmaiperukki Revenue Village, Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District and release the same.

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he intended to purchase a property from the third respondent and 2/6

when they presented the sale deed, the second respondent received the same and issued acknowledgment order. However, the said sale deed has not been registered so far. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner intends to purchase a property from the third respondent but the respondents 4 to 6 have created a forged document. Hence, on a complaint made by the third respondent, enquiry was conducted by the first respondent and ultimately, the first respondent passed an order stating that the sale deed executed by the respondents 4 to 6 is a forged one by virtue of his order dated 11.11.2020. Therefore, there is no impediment for the SubRegistrar to register the document in question. 4.Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that in the present case, apart from the fact that the said sale deed executed by the respondents 4 to 6 have been declared as a forged one, the patta stands in the name of a different person. Therefore, the official respondents are not in a position to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner and the third respondent. 3/6

5.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that with regard to the forgery of the document by the respondents 4 to 6, the same has attained finality since the first respondent through his order dated 11.11.2020 has declared the said document as a forged one. Therefore, the second respondent cannot site the reason that the sixth respondent's name appears in their records. As far as patta is concerned, it is a settled law that patta cannot decide title. However, it is open to the petitioner to explain the registering authority and if the patta aspect is clarified, the second respondent shall take an independent decision and take steps to register the document presented by the petitioner and the third respondent, if it is otherwise in order. 7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

04.12.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR 4/6

To 1.The District Registrar, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

MR W.P.(MD)No.31724 of 2025 04.12.2025 6/6