The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a second respondent's order rejecting a property claim. The court held that the matter requires resolution by a civil court, particularly as an appeal is pending against a prior civil decree.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.21034 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD) No.21034 of 2016
T.Rajalakshmi
.. Petitioner
Vs.
2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, No.70, Oovaiar Street, Opp. Jothi Lodge, Aranmanai, Ramanathapuram-623 501.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Rameswaram of Ramanathapuram District (Admn.,), Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the
_________Page 1 of 5
W.P.(MD) No.21034 of 2016
second respondent and quash the same as null and void and consequently direct the second respondent to conduct a proper enquiry under Circular No.67 issued by the first respondent vide his proceedings in C.No. 52338/C1/2011 dated 03.11.2011 within the time to be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.12.2015 as null and void and to consequently direct the second respondent to conduct a proper enquiry as per Circular No.67.
claim of the petitioner by observing that the issues could be only resolved by a civil Court.
_________Page 2 of 5
W.P.(MD) No.21034 of 2016
which an appeal is pending in A.S.No.153 of 2024 before this Court.
22.11.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No abr
_________Page 3 of 5
W.P.(MD) No.21034 of 2016
To
_________Page 4 of 5
W.P.(MD) No.21034 of 2016
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
abr
W.P.(MD) No.21034 of 2016
Dated: 22.11.2024
_________Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to resolve the issues in the property dispute where the registering authority rejected the petitioner's claim.
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the second respondent's order should be allowed given the pending civil appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶26
(2016) 10 SCC 767 · Who else cites this
T.Rajalakshmi
Inspector General of Registration
District Registrar
Sub-Registrar
K.Kumareesh Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
