Dismissed

K.Chithrakala, v. The District Registrar

Madras HC16 Dec 2020WP/8506/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the District Registrar to dispose of a representation filed on 09.03.2017 within a specific timeframe. The Court dismissed the petition, noting that since the petitioner had obtained a decreed civil suit, she could have registered the decree with the Sub Registrar instead of seeking this writ. Consequently, no specific relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus dismissed; Petitioner directed to register decree before jurisdictional Sub Registrar at her own risk.

K.Chithrakala, Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.8506 of 2017

¶6

and W.M.P.No.9294 of 2017

¶7

K.Chithrakala ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1.The District Registrar, O/o Registration Department, Erode, Erode District. 2.K.Prema 3.T.K.Gowri Prakash 4.T.K.Madankumar ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 09.03.2017 within a stipulated time.

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Hemalatha for Mr.C.Prakasam

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman,

¶12

Government Advocate (R1)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 09.03.2017 within a time frame.

¶15

2.It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the private respondents may alienate the property behind the back of the petitioner.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also filed a Civil Suit and also the said suit was decreed in her favour.

¶17

4.On a perusal of the representation dated 09.03.2017, it is clear that the petitioner has made a prayer to the 1^st https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent not to register any documents pertaining to the

¶18

property in question. When it is the contention of the petitioner that she had filed a Civil Suit and also succeeded, instead of making a prayer to the 1^st respondent not to register documents, she could have registered the decree before the concerned jurisdictional Sub Registrar.

¶19

5.In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to get the decree registered before the concerned jurisdictional Sub Registrar in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

-sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS)
// True Copy //
Sub-Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The District Registrar,
O/o Registration Department,
Erode, Erode District.
+ 1 C.C. to Government Pleader, High Court,
Madras SR.NO.41561
W.P.No.8506 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.9294 of 2017
CA [CO]
RR 19/01/2021

¶21

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

K.Chithrakala, v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chithrakala, v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Aruna Constructions Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

B.Gnanasundari, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Kaliyannan Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Farida Banu Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Pavan Doors and Windows Vs Industries Commissioner and

A.Raja Vs The District Collector