The Madurai Bench dismissed an application for special leave to appeal as not maintainable. It held the appellant was not a 'person aggrieved' or bound by the single judge's order directing registration of a deed, citing Supreme Court precedents requiring actual adverse effect on rights or being bound by the decree.
Peition dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMP(MD) No.8816 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Ninth day of November Two Thousand and Twenty One
PRESENT
The Honble Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and The Honble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN
CMP(MD) No.8816 of 2021 IN W.A.SR(MD)No.47963 of 2021
MUTHURAMALINGAM
... PETITIONER/ APPELLANT
Vs
1 MALATHI
... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/
PETITIONER
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR SRIVILLIPUTHUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT
Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to grant special leave to prefer an appeal as against the order passed in WP(MD)No.11782 of 2021 dated 14.07.2021.
PRAYER IN W.A.SR(MD)No.47963 of 2021:
To set aside the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P(MD) No.11782 of 2021 dated 14.07.2021.
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.11782 of 2021: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Sub Registrar, Srivilliputhur, the respondent herein to register and release the sale Deed dated 24.06.2021 presented for registration, kept as pending Documents No.P/Srivilliputhur/15/2021 respectively within a time frame as may be fixed.
ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.PITCHAI MUTHU, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order:-
1/3
CMP(MD) No.8816 of 2021
(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The petitioner claiming himself to be the aggrieved person in view of the order passed in W.P(MD)No.11782 of 2021, has sought the leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the order passed in the above writ petition.
2.The writ petition was for a Mandamus, directing the Sub Registrar, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, to register and release the Release Deed dated 24.06.2021, which was presented for registration, but was kept pending in view of the objections raised by the petitioner herein. Merely because the objections are raised, the Registrar cannot keep the document pending unless the objector establishes his right, if any, in a manner known to law. The learned single Judge also has observed that upon perusal of the records, the property in question was purchased by the writ petitioner's husband through a registered document and the other relevant records are also standing in her husband's name. In view of the prima facie documents establishing the right and title of the writ petitioner's husband, the learned single Judge has directed the respondent to entertain the document and register the same. The petitioner herein cannot be a person aggrieved in this regard, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N.Krishna Murthy and another vs. Ravikumar and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 501, wherein, at paragraphs 19 and 20, it has been held as follows:-
''19.The expression ''person aggrieved'' does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised.(vide Shanti Kumar R.Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York (1974) 2 SCC 387 and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592.
20.In K.Ponnalagu Ammani v. State of Madras 1952 SCC Online Mad 300, this Court laid down the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding against the decree or judgment passed in such proceedings in the following words:
''Now, what is the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding against the decree or judgment in such proceedings? We think it would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment. We think that ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings.''
2/3
CMP(MD) No.8816 of 2021
3.In view of the above proposition, we are also of the considered view that the petitioner herein cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and he is also not bound by the order passed by this Court. It is always open to him to establish his right and get his claim confirmed. Hence, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
sd/09/11/2021 / TRUE COPY /
/ /2021
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO
THE SUB REGISTRAR SRIVILLIPUTHUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
ORDER
IN CMP(MD) No.8816 of 2021 in W.A.SR(MD)No.47963 of 2021 Date :09/11/2021 bala
MS/VR/SAR-1/12.11.2021/3P.2C
3/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an objector to the registration of a sale deed is a 'person aggrieved' entitled to appeal.
Whether raising objections without establishing a right in law makes one a person aggrieved.
The test for granting special leave to appeal to a non-party to the proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.N.Krishna Murthy and another vs. Ravikumar and othersApplied¶25
(2020) 9 SCC 501 · Who else cites this
Shanti Kumar R.Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New YorkFollowed¶25
Shanti Kumar R.Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York (1974) 2 SCC 387 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶25
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592 · Who else cites this
K.Ponnalagu Ammani v. State of MadrasFollowed¶25
K.Ponnalagu Ammani v. State of Madras 1952 SCC Online Mad 300 · Who else cites this
MUTHURAMALINGAM
MALATHI
THE SUB REGISTRAR SRIVILLIPUTHUR
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
