Dismissed

S.Sampath v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC13 Sept 2023WP/2734/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to prohibit Sub-Registrar from registering documents concerning specific properties alleging ownership and fraud. Court held it cannot conduct roving enquiry into fraud allegations, leaving petitioner to approach criminal or civil courts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the petitioner was directed to initiate appropriate actions in Criminal or Civil Courts to establish rights.

S.Sampath Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.2734 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.2734 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.2844 of 2023

Mr.S.Sampath

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Selaiyur,

¶12

Chennai – 600 073.

¶13

2.A.Sheik Uduman

¶14

3.H.Balaji

¶15

4.Ms.R.Shanthakumarai RamDoss

¶16

5.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kadaiyanallur, Tirunelveli District.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.2734 of 2023

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent not to register any Document or Deed connected with the properties situated in Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, comprised in Survey No.14/3 measuring to an extent of 1.31 acres and also in Survey No.457 measuring to an extent of 4.72 acres, within the Registration jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokiamaniraj For R1 & R5 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader For R2 : No appearance For R3 & R4 : Not ready in notice

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the 1^st respondent not to register any Document or Deed connected with the properties situated in Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District, comprised in Survey No.14/3 measuring to an extent of 1.31 acres and also in Survey No.457 measuring to an extent of 4.72 acres, within the Registration jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent.

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.2734 of 2023

¶28

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the 4^th respondent has

¶29

earlier filed a Writ Petition for registering the documents in respect of the very same property. The writ petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition on the ground that he is the owner of the property and fraudulent documents have been executed from the year 1973 onwards.

¶30

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contended that a

¶31

systematic fraud has been committed in respect of the transfer of the subject property belonging to the writ petitioner and he has given a complaint before the police, which is yet to be registered.

¶32

The Inspector of Police, D-17 Perumbakkam, conducted an enquiry

¶33

and found that there are no sufficient documents to register a Criminal Case by the Police. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the said contention by stating that the registered document of the year 1973 itself is a fraudulent registration.

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.2734 of 2023

¶37

May that as it be. This Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry in

¶38

respect of the allegations of fraud relating to the registration of documents. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he is at liberty to approach the Criminal Court of law by registering a private complaint along with the documents or the competent Civil Court of law to establish that the civil rights, as the case may be. It is left open to the petitioner to initiate all appropriate actions to establish his rights in the manner known to law.

¶39

With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶40

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶41

13.09.2023

¶42

skr Index : Yes Speaking order

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.2734 of 2023

¶46

¶47

1.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Selaiyur,

¶48

Chennai – 600 073.

¶49

2.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kadaiyanallur, Tirunelveli District.

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.2734 of 2023

¶53

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶54

skr

¶55

W.P.No.2734 of 2023

¶56

13.09.2023

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

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

S.Sampath v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sampath 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

K.S.Adhikesavalu Vs The District Collector

M.Monica, Vs Ms.Senthilvadivu

K.Umapathy Vs Sri Kamatchi Amman Devasthanam

Xavier Britto Vs The Secretary to the Government of India

L.Srinivasulu Vs The Secretary

T.S.Mahendran Vs The Inspector General of Registration