Dismissed

Veeramanikandan v. the Joint Sub Registrar No.I (in Charge)

Madras HC16 Jul 2024WA/2077/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Appeal, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal filed by Veeramanikandan against an order regarding a Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a document. The Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Veeramanikandan Vs the Joint Sub Registrar No.I (in Charge) — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.No.2077 of 2024

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶7

W.A.No. 2077 of 2024 and

¶8

C.M.P.No. 14657 of 2024

Veeramanikandan

...Appellant

Vs.

1.The Joint Sub-Registrar No.I, (in charge) Cuddalore.

¶13

2.The Revenue Tahsildar, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶14

3.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶15

4.V.Valli

¶16

5.V.Raja ...Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent,

¶18

against the order dated 18.04.2024 made in W.P.No.34772 of 2022.

¶19

1/4

¶20

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

¶21

W.A.No.2077 of 2024

¶22

For Appellant : Mr.Prakash Adiapadam For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for R2 & R3

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶25

The appellants wanted to invest the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in a

¶26

Sub-Registrar who is an ordinary Officer vested with duties of registering instruments. The Sub-Registrar also readily usurped the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and determined the nature of a Patta as well as the rights of parties in immovable property. This was questioned by the 4th & 5th respondents before the Writ Court. The Writ Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Sub-Registrar has no right to refuse to register a document on the ground that a protest petition has been lodged in violation of the substantive provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,1882.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.A.No.2077 of 2024

¶30

We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned

¶31

single Judge. This Writ Appeal is therefore, dismissed . We make it clear

¶32

that any of the observations made in the order of the learned single Judge made in the Writ Petition or in our order will not affect the rights of the appellants herein, if they chose to seek to establish their rights before the competent Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 16.07.2024

¶34

kkn

¶35

Internet:Yes Index: No Speaking Neutral Citation : No

¶36

3/4

¶37

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

¶38

W.A.No.2077 of 2024

¶39

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶40

KKN

¶41

To:-

¶42

1.The Joint Sub-Registrar No.I, (in charge) Cuddalore.

¶43

2.The Revenue Tahsildar, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶44

3.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶45

W.A.No. 2077 of 2024

¶46

and C.M.P.No. 14657 of 2024

¶47

16.07.2024

¶48

4/4

¶49

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

Veeramanikandan v. the Joint Sub Registrar No.I (in Charge)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeramanikandan v. the Joint Sub Registrar No.I (in Charge)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Dhandapani Vs M.Balasubramanian

The Chief Executive Claim Officer Vs Lakshmi Devi

S.Settu Vs Thangammal

Saraswathy Ammal(died), 1.Rajachidambaram Vs the District Collector

G. Saraswathi Vs the Inspector General for Reg

M/S.Zoho Corporation Private Limited Company Vs the Inspector General of Registration