Disposed

S.Ilayaraja v. the Joint Sub Registrar NO.1

Madras HC7 Nov 2023WA/3053/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenges an order where the Sub-Registrar did not register a sale deed due to a dispute over duplicate documents. Lacking a formal refusal order, the court directed the authority to pass necessary orders within one week if the document is re-presented.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was disposed of; no costs. The authority is directed to pass orders within one week if the document is re-presented.

S.Ilayaraja Vs the Joint Sub Registrar NO.1 — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1/4

¶2

W.A.No.3053/2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED :: 07-11-2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶9

W.A.No.3053 of 2023

S.Ilayaraja

... Appellant

-vs-

1.The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Kallakurichi.

¶14

2.Murugesan ... Respondents

¶15

Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 27.07.2023, passed in W.P.No.19534 of 2023.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.N.Suresh

¶17

For Respondent 1 : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Addl.Govt.Pleader.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2/4

W.A.No.3053/2023

JUDGMENT

(By S.Vaidyanathan,J .)

¶23

This intra-court has been filed challenging the order, dated 27.07.2023,

¶24

passed in W.P.No.19534 of 2023.

¶25

The case of the appellant is that he presented a sale deed through online for registration, which was taken as P5/2023, and the first respondent Sub-Registrar has not registered the document on the ground that two sets of documents are registered by two persons in respect of the same subject property.

¶26

Admittedly, there is no endorsement of refusal by the authority to register the document. According to the appellant, from the vendor, namely, K.Palanisamy, he sought to purchase the subject property, for which the document was presented for registration; that one third party had approached the authority with a sale agreement and that it was not that there were two registered documents pertaining to the same property, which existed on the date when P5/2023 was presented.

¶27

We do not want to go into that question for the present, as there is no endorsement of refusal or any other order passed by the Sub-Registrar. Under Section 71 of the Registration Act,1908, the authority is expected to pass necessary orders. In case the document is re-presented by the petitioner, the authority is directed to pass necessary orders within one week from the date of re-presentation of the document and, if more than one document is registered with regard to the same property, appropriate

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

3/4

¶30

W.A.No.3053/2023

¶31

decision can be taken by the authority and the same communicated to the parties,

¶32

whereupon, if the appellant is aggrieved, it is open for him to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶33

Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶34

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No dixit

¶35

(S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 07-11-2023

¶36

¶37

The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Kallakurichi.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

4/4

¶40

W.A.No.3053/2023

¶41

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J. AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.

dixit

W.A.No.3053 of 2023

07-11-2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Ilayaraja v. the Joint Sub Registrar NO.1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ilayaraja v. the Joint Sub Registrar NO.1

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

The Secretary Vs Elephant G Rajendran

The Secretary Vs S. Mahaveer Shivaji

R.Subbulakshmi, Vs The District Collector

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer

Anna Enclave Residents Welfare Association Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/S. Computer Age Management Services Ltd. Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -Ii