Disposed

Sundaramoorthi Nayanar v. Dhandapani

Madras HC11 Nov 2024WA/2903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against disposal of a registration refusal writ petition without notice to the appellant, whose patta covered the sale deed property. Holding that the appellant had to be heard and that registration cannot be insisted upon ignoring the executant's patta under the Patta Passbook Act, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order and remitted the matter.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sundaramoorthi Nayanar Vs Dhandapani — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.No.2903 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

W.A.No.2903 of 2024 AND C.M.P.No.21447 of 2024

¶7

Sundaramoorthi Nayanar .. Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Dhandapani

¶10

2.The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar Kaveripattinam Krishnagiri District .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24592 of 2024.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.C.Jagadish For 1^st Respondent : Mrs.Reshmi Christy For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay Additional Government Pleader

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

¶15

This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge

¶16

dated 28.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.24592 of 2024.

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.A.No.2903 of 2024

¶20

The 1^st respondent herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24592 of 2024

¶21

for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order in the refusal check slip dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Sub Registrar, while refusing to register the sale deed dated 25.07.2024. Though the appellant was impleaded as 2^nd respondent in the writ petition, it appears that the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, without issuing notice to the appellant/ 2^nd respondent.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of the subject property of the sale deed viz. , survey No.179/9, patta passbook stands in the name of the appellant. The learned counsel contended that the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner derived title through one Govindaraj, who had purchased the property vide document dated 10.06.1966. Referring to the property that was conveyed in favour of the said Govindaraj, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said property falls in survey No.179/7 and not the property to which the appellant has got title and obtained patta.

¶23

It is also the case of the appellant that taking advantage of a compromise decree and a mistake in the survey field mentioned in the compromise decree dated 19.10.1967, the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner claim

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.A.No.2903 of 2024

¶27

title to the property in survey No.179/9. The property is also the subject matter of another suit in O.S.No.406 of 2022 pending on the file of the Principal

¶28

District Court, Krishnagiri.

¶29

Having regard to the nature of contentions and the fact that the appellant is the registered land owner and patta stands in his name, this Court is of the view that the appellant is also to be heard before disposing of the writ petition. The 1^st respondent/writ petitioner cannot insist the Sub Registrar to register the document without perusing the patta stands in the name of the executant, by virtue of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. This Court, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for passing orders after hearing the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner.

¶30

With the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

Connected C.M.P. is closed.

¶32

[S.S.S.R.,J.] [P.D.B., J.] Index : Yes/No 11.11.2024 Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya

¶33

S.S.SUNDAR, J. AND

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.A.No.2903 of 2024

¶37

To The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar Kaveripattinam Krishnagiri District

P.DHANABAL, J.

gya

W.A.No.2903 of 2024

11.11.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Sundaramoorthi Nayanar v. Dhandapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sundaramoorthi Nayanar v. Dhandapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Director of Employment and Training Vs Paavendhar Industrial School

A.Rajasekar Vs N. Kothai

G.Malliga Vs the District Collector

Ca v.Venkata Siva Kumar Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs (Mca)

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Diamond Jubilee Higher

Dr.Geetha Devadas, Vs Mr.J.Kumaragurubaran, Ias., and 5 others