Dismissed

R. Thirunavukarasu v. Joint I Sub Registrar

Madras HC11 Dec 2013WP(MD)/14094/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition seeking mandatory direction to register an amended partition decree. The Court held that the petitioners failed to exhaust their alternative statutory remedy available against the Sub-Registrar's order on registration fees and thus were not entitled to relief. The petitioners were directed to approach the appropriate statutory authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

R. Thirunavukarasu Vs Joint I Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.12.2013

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶6

W.P(MD) No.14094 of 2011

¶7

1.R.Thirunavukarasu 2.T.Senthil Kumar 3.T.Murugan

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

¶10

Joint I Sub Registrar Kumbakonam ... Respondent

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent herein to register the amended final decree of partition presented before it on 08.03.2011 with necessary registration charges holding that there is no delay in presentation of the same and release the partition deed.

¶12

For petitioner ... Mr.M.V.Santharaman For Respondent ... Mr.K.Guru, Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶15

2.The relief sought for herein is for issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondent/Joint-I Sub-Registrar, Kumbakonam to register the amended Final Decree of partition presented before it on 08.03.2011 with necessary registration charges and to release the partition deed after registration.

¶16

3.The Petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.158 of 2008 before the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, for preliminary decree for partition. The issue was compromised between the parties and on the basis of compromise memo, the suit was disposed of by passing a Final Decree. The final decree was passed on 31.03.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiff has forward with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ I.A.No.281 of 2010 in O.S.No.158 of 2008 to amend the plaint schedule properties and consequently, to amend the schedule of properties in the final decree passed by the trial Court. After

¶17

¶18

hearing both sides, I.A.No.281 of 2010 was ordered, as prayed for and the final decree stands amended in terms. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the respondent/Joint I Sub Registrar for registration of the amended final decree with all the necessary documents, but the same was not registered for want of sufficient registration fees, which compelled the petitioners to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

¶19

4.In the course of argument, it is fairly conceded that alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under the relevant statute against the order referred to above issued by the respondent relating to the issue of payment of sufficient registration fees. The petitioners have without availing such remedy, wrongly approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The petitioners have not even raised any ground against the correctness of the communication issued by the respondent for payment of registration fees. In view of the above factual state of affairs, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in the writ petition.

¶20

5.Therefore, this Court directs the petitioners to approach the appropriate statutory authority for appropriate remedy subject to limitation. The authority concerned is directed to consider the period during which the Writ Petition was pending before this Court, while deciding the issue of delay of limitation.

¶21

6.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(A.S)

¶23

/True Copy /

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Joint I Sub Registrar, Kumbakonam.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.M.V.Santharaman, Advocate in Sr No.61847.

¶28

+1cc to the Spl.Government Pleader, in Sr No.62007.

¶29

Writ Petition No.14094 of 2011 11.12.2013

¶30

¶31

msm 19.12.2013 p2/4c

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R. Thirunavukarasu v. Joint I Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R. Thirunavukarasu v. Joint I Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.R. Rajammal and Company Vs the Regional Manager

K. Mathayee, Vs the Tamil Nadus Tate Legal

A.Jayachandran Vs G.Nagarajan

P. Jeyakumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

J. Joseph Jayaraj, Vs the Director General of Police

A.Marudhupandiyan Vs the Sub Registrar