Disposed

S.Dhanasekaran v. The Sub - Registrar

Madras HC5 Aug 2021WP/14163/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed if eligible or, if refusing, to provide written reasons within three weeks after issuing notice to the objector. The petitioner was directed to re-present the document.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to re-present document; Registrar must issue notice to objector, conduct enquiry, admit document, and give written reasons for refusal within three weeks.

S.Dhanasekaran Vs The Sub - Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.14163 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.15042 of 2021

S.Dhanasekaran

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Sub-Registrar Kandamangalam, Villupuram District.

¶10

2.A.Ramesh ..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to register the instrument i.e., the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner herein on 21.06.2021 in favour of the petitioner for the house hold vacant site situated at Thirumangalam Village, Vikravandi Taluk, Villupuram District, in Village Natham Survey No.241/29, (Old S.No.8/15) to an extend of 00113 Sq.Mtrs (1216 Sq.ft).

¶12

For Petitioner .. Mr.M.Arumugam for A.Vimal Raj

¶13

For Respondent .. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner S.Dhanasekaran S/o.Subramanian wanted to purchase a property from A.Kuppammal W/o.P.Arumugam since she required money for her medical expenses to undergo a new operation. The house hold property was an extent of 1216 Sq.ft. of vacant site, Village Natham Survey No.241/29, (Old S.No.8/15) originally allotted to P.Arumugam S/o of Poongavanam in Vadakku Colony, Thirumangalam Village, Vikaravandi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶16

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

¶17

2.It is claimed that the said P.Arumugam taken possession and was enjoying it. The patta in his name has been produced as a document to the writ petition. The said P.Arumugam died. His legal representatives were his wife A.Kupammal and daughter Kousalya. As stated A.Kupammal wanted to dispose of the property to the petitioner herein. They entered into a Sale Deed dated 21.06.2021 and presented the Sale Deed to the 1^st respondent, Sub-Registrar, Kandamangalam, Villupuram District. He returned it claiming that the 2^nd respondent has raised objections.

¶18

3.However, it the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that reasons were not given for such rejection, but orally, the document was refused to be even received by the 1^st respondent and he just returned it back to the writ petitioner herein.

¶19

4.While discharging an official duty, it is incumbent on the 1^st respondent either to register the document or if he decides not to register it, to give reasons, so that the parties who present the document would know the reasons and thereafter try to rectify the same. In this case the 1^st respondent has not even received the documents.

¶20

5.I would therefore called upon the writ petitioner to present the document in a proper form once again within a period of four weeks from this date and thereafter, the 1^st respondent should take a decision to register or refuse to register the document. He must give reasons in writing to the petitioner. At any rate, such reasons must be given within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of the document. During the course of taking such a decision, the 1^st respondent must also issue notice and enquire the 2^nd respondent.

¶21

6.With the said observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

smv

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Sub-Registrar Kandamangalam, Villupuram District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.M.Arumugam, Advocate, S.R.No.38624 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.39088

¶30

W.P.No.14163 of 2021 GPL(CO) RGA(24/08/2021)

¶31

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

S.Dhanasekaran v. The Sub - Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dhanasekaran v. The Sub - Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.N.S.Sukumaran Vs R.Lakshmi

P.Damodharan, Vs The District Collector

P.Thirumoorthy Vs The District Collector

K.Sivan, Vs The Tahsildar

S.Palani Vs The Tahsildar

M.Amavasai Vs The District Collector