Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sugumaran Vs Daiveegan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

Home
Madras HC
2021
Sugumaran Vs DaiveeganSugumaran v. Daiveegan

Allowed

Sugumaran v. Daiveegan

Madras HC21 Sept 2021CRP/1654/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against High Court granted leave to reopen case and summon Sub-Registrar to resolve discrepancy in property measurement.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.685 of 2018 set aside; petitioners permitted to reopen case and summon Sub-Registrar, Aragandanallur.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

C.R.P. (PD) No.1654 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.09.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN

C.R.P. (PD) No.1654 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.10755 of 2019
1.Sugumaran
2.Senthilkumaran ... Revision Petitioners
Vs.
1.Daiveegan
2.Sumathi
3.Gandhimathi
4.Krishnamoorthi ... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal order in I.A.No.685 of 2018 in I.A.No.538 of 2013 in O.S.144 of 2013 dated 03.12.2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For R1 to R4 : Mr.H.Rajesh

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 6

C.R.P. (PD) No.1654 of 2019

O R D E R

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to summon the Sub-Registrar for clarification of documentary discrepancy should be set aside.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sugumaran
petitioner
Senthilkumaran
respondent
Daiveegan
respondent
Sumathi
respondent
Gandhimathi
respondent

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 21 Sept 2021 · September
Registered: 27 Apr 2019
Case no.: CRP/1654/2019

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G. Chandrasekharan

V.Soundararajan Vs v.Venkatesan
20 Sept 2021
Dr.Senthil Kumar Elangovan Vs Dr.Gnanakalyani
20 Sept 2021
Sasikumar Vs Suganthi
20 Sept 2021
Mr. Alwin Vs Mrs.Sheela
21 Sept 2021
V.P.Shamsudeen(Deceased) Vs the Superintending Engineer

Cite this judgement

Sugumaran v. Daiveegan, CRP/1654/2019 (MAD), decided on 21 September 2021.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN

Parties & counsel

Outcome

I.A.No.685 of 2018 set aside; petitioners permitted to reopen case and summon Sub-Registrar, Aragandanallur.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to summon the Sub-Registrar for clarification of documentary discrepancy should be set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the impugned order of the learned Principal District Munsif. The Court held that a serious discrepancy exists between the sale deed and encumbrance certificate regarding the East-West measurement of the suit property. Consequently, the application to summon the Sub-Registrar to produce registers and clarify the measurement is allowed to adjudicate rights correctly.

A compact analysis

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.

(Through Video Conferencing)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.685 of 2018 in I.A.No.538 of 2013 in O.S.No.144 of 2013, on

03.12.2018, by the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed the suit in O.S.No.144 of 2013 against the respondents, seeking the relief of declaration of title over the “C” Schedule Property, grant of permanent injunction and for costs. An application in I.A.No.538 of 2013 was also filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit in respect of the “C” Schedule Property, restraining the respondents, their men and agents from trespassing

into the “C” Schedule Property.

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in the

enquiry in I.A.No.538 of 2013, the respondents produced the sale deed, dated 23.01.1936, in favour of Michiammal, in support of their case. In this

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 6

C.R.P. (PD) No.1654 of 2019

sale deed, a registered copy of which was filed as Ex.R10, the East-West measurement was altered as 36 feet from 30 feet. As per the original document and the records available with the Registration Department, the measurement of the “C” Schedule Property is 30 feet East-West and 45 feet North-South. However, the respondents have deliberately altered the measurements as 36 feet in the place of 30 feet. He further submitted that the petitioners obtained the Encumbrance Certificates for this property and the original Encumbrance Certificates were produced as Exs.A10 and A11. The Encumbrance Certificates clearly show that the East-West measurement of “C” Schedule Property is 30 feet and North-South measurement is 45 feet. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for the petitioners to summon the Sub-Registrar, Aragandanallur, to establish this discrepancy in the measurement. For this purpose, it is necessary to reopen the case of the petitioners. However, it is submitted that the learned Judge without considering the genuine claim of the petitioners, dismissed the petition. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition.

4.In response, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed this

petition and submitted that, reopening of the case is not necessary and the

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 6

C.R.P. (PD) No.1654 of 2019

alleged correction was not made by the respondents and the reopening petition was filed only to drag on the proceedings.

5.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

6.From a perusal of the facts of the case from the submissions of the parties, it is clear that there is a serious dispute with regard to the East-West measurement of “C” Schedule Property. From the photocopy of the certified copy of the registered sale deed produced in the form of Typed Set of Papers, it is seen that the East-West measurement is given as 36 feet. However, the photocopy of the Encumbrance Certificate for the same property shows the East-West measurement as 30 feet. Obviously, there is a discrepancy with regard to the extent of East-West measurement of “C” Schedule Property. As rightly claimed by the petitioners, this discrepancy can be resolved, if the Aragandanallur Sub-Registrar is directed to produce the relevant Registers and examined. Otherwise, this discrepancy will continue forever and it will ultimately affect the rights and liabilities of the parties. It would also be difficult for the Court to adjudicate the matter correctly.

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 6

C.R.P. (PD) No.1654 of 2019

7.In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that

I.A.No.685 of 2018 ought to have been allowed by the learned Principal
District Munsif, Thirukoilur. Therefore, the order of the learned Principal
District Munsif, Thirukoilur, is set aside and I.A.No.685 of 2018 in
I.A.No.538 of 2013 in O.S.No.144 of 2013 is allowed. The petitioners are
permitted to reopen the case and summon the Sub-Registrar,
Aragandanallur, to substantiate their case.
8.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.09.2021
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 6

C.R.P. (PD) No.1654 of 2019

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

mkn

To

The Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur.

C.R.P. (PD) No.1654 of 2019

21.09.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 6 of 6

Krishnamoorthi

Coram

AI extract

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN

CNR

HCMA010631012019

Topic

Property and Title

Bench

G. Chandrasekharan

Disposal

ALLOWED

21 Sept 2021

R.Sridharan Vs S.Kalpana

21 Sept 2021