Rajendran v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Rajendran

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Dindigul District.

2.The Sub Registrar Joint No.2, Office of the Sub Registrar, Dindigul District.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from registering any document of alienation or encumbrance executed by the third parties in respect of the subject properties in Survey No.1818/3A, comprised in Agaram Village, Dindigul District including the well and service connection until the disposal of O.S.No.277 of 2025 and to consider the petitioner's representation cum protest petition dated 13.11.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate 1/5

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to forbear the respondents from registering any document of alienation or encumbrance executed by the third parties in respect of the subject properties in Survey No.1818/3A, comprised in Agaram Village, Dindigul District including the well and service connection until the disposal of O.S.No.277 of 2025 and to consider the petitioner's representation cum protest petition dated 13.11.2025. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed O.S.No.277 of 2025 seeking declaration that the Well and service connection are common and that the settlement deeds executed by third parties, which relates to the Well are null and void. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Sub Registrar requesting that no further alienations be registered. Despite the same, a sale deed was executed on 02.12.2025. Hence, the petitioner filed a representation in the form of Protest Petition on 13.11.2025 and since the same was not considered, the present writ petition is filed.

2/5

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Sub Registrar proceeds to register any document relating to the subject property, it would defeat the pending civil proceedings and cause irreparable loss to the petitioner and hence, he prays that a direction may be issued to the Sub Registrar to consider the petitioner's protest petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the protest petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent vide the proceedings dated 04.12.2025. A copy of the said proceeding is produced before this Court.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. On a perusal of the rejection order, it is seen that the same was not filed by the owner of the property. Further, a civil suit is also pending between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner can very well work out his remedy before the civil court. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the rejection order in the manner known to law.

3/5

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

11.12.2025 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No CM To, 1.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Dindigul District.

2.The Sub Registrar Joint No.2, Office of the Sub Registrar, Dindigul District.

4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

CM 11.12.2025 5/5