Allowed

Bavapriya v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC22 Oct 2024WP(MD)/8846/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to register a sale deed salt-pending due to a protest petition from Radha, a claimant of co-sharer status. The Court held that a co-sharer must file a partition suit, not a protest petition, to claim shares. The Sub Registrar was directed to register the deed within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to register and release the sale deed dated 18.03.2024 within two weeks.

Bavapriya Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8846 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8846 of 2024

¶7

Bavapriya

¶8

Arthi

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

¶11

The Sub Registrar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

Radha

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to register and release the sale deed dated 18.03.2024 executed by the petitioners in favour of one Gurusamy.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr. S.Selva Aditya For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh (R1) Government Advocate

¶16

Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar (R2)

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.8846 of 2024

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed directing the 1^st respondent to

¶22

¶23

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Perused the materials on record.

¶24

3.It is the case of the petitioners that the property originally belongs to one Chinnasamy and Periyasamy. In an oral partition, the properties were allotted to the share of Chinnasamy. After the death of Chinnasamy, the property was devolved upon to his only son Genganna. The petitioners are the daughters of said Genganna. He has executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. Now,

¶25

the petitioners have agreed to sell the property to one Gurusamy and when presented the document for sale, it has been kept pending based on the objection raised by the second respondent, who is the daughter-in-law of said Periyasamy.

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.8846 of 2024

¶29

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the

¶30

second respondent is the wife of Late.Srinivasan, who already gave a complaint under Section 77 of Registration Act, 1908 and later withdrew it. Based on the objection made by the second respondent, the document presented for registration is kept pending by the 1 st respondent.

¶31

5.At the outset, from the facts narrated, it reveals that the second respondent is claiming right as a legal heir of one Periyasamy, as a co-sharer in the property. When that being the position, merely based on the protest petition filed by the 2 nd respondent, the registration cannot be stalled by the 1 st respondent. However, the 2 nd respondent claims to be co-sharer has to claim share only by way of filing a suit for partition, not by way of protest petition.

¶32

6.In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to register the document presented by the petitioners, dated 18.03.2024 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.8846 of 2024

¶36

7.With the above direction, this writ petition stands dismissed. There

¶37

shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

22.10.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No PNM

¶40

To 1. The Sub Registrar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.8846 of 2024

¶44

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶45

PNM

¶46

ORDER IN

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.8846 of 2024

¶48

22.10.2024

¶49

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

¶50

5/6

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.8846 of 2024

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

Bavapriya v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bavapriya 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

Meenachiapuram Nadar Uravinmurai Vs The District Registrar

Pechiammal .B Vs The Superintendent Engineer

Suriyadeepan Vs The Additional Executive Engineer

Mohamed Thaha Vs The District Collector

R.Saravanan Vs The Managing Director

Paul Rodrigo. T Vs The Administrative Committee