Disposed

S.Amalraj v. C.Sivakumar

Madras HC8 Dec 2025CMP(MD)/17696/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave-to-appeal application against a Single Judge's direction to register a sale document. The applicant claimed the order was passed behind the back of a title holder despite an adverse injunction suit. Leave was granted and status quo ordered pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file writ appeal granted; Registry to number appeal; status quo with bar on creating encumbrances till appeal disposal.

S.Amalraj Vs C.Sivakumar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.P.(MD) No.17696 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

C.M.P.(MD) No.17696 of 2025 in W.A.(MD) SR No.72811 of 2025

S.Amalraj

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.C.Sivakumar

2.The Sub-Registrar, O/o the Sub Registrar Melur West, Melur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant leave to file appeal against the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in W.P.(MD) No.18722 of 2025.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Subbiah

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan for R1 Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader for R2

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

C.M.P.(MD) No.17696 of 2025

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶20

Behind the back of the alleged owner, the Writ Petition filed to register a document. The learner Single Judge allowed it. Claiming title over the property, the present application is filed to grant leave for preferring appeal, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶21

2 . On notice, the caveator appeared before this Court and filed affidavit stating that he is not aware of the earlier proceedings between his vendor and the present petitioner and it is incorrect to say that the order in the Writ petition was obtained behind his back. Further, he stated that pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge, the instrument had already been registered as Document No.3634/2025, before the Sub Registrar Office, Melur and therefore nothing survives.

¶22

3. The learned Single Judge, despite intervention by the other title holder and the dismissal of the injunction suit, wherein the trial Court has

¶23

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶24

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

¶25

C.M.P.(MD) No.17696 of 2025

¶26

incidentally gone into title over the property and held against the vendor of the Writ Petitioner, had directed the Sub Registrar to register a document presented by a person, who is apparently not the owner of the property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the application to grant leave for preferring appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge is to be allowed. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

¶27

4. Registry is directed to number the Writ Appeal and list the matter for admission. There shall be status quo of the issue and the first respondent/Writ Petitioner shall not create any encumbrance over the property taking advantage of the registration of the sale deed, till the disposal of the Writ appeal.

¶28

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]

¶29

08.12.2025

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶31

vsm

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶33

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

¶34

C.M.P.(MD) No.17696 of 2025

¶35

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶36

vsm

¶37

To:

¶38

The Sub-Registrar, O/o the Sub Registrar Melur West, Melur, Madurai District.

¶39

C.M.P.(MD) No.17696 of 2025 in W.A.(MD) SR No.72811 of 2025

¶40

08.12.2025

¶41

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

¶42

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

S.Amalraj v. C.Sivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Amalraj v. C.Sivakumar

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

P.Manikandan Poosari Vs P.Seethalakshmi

The State Government of Tamil Nadu Vs N.Chitrarasu

Pappa Vs Axelin Thiraviyam

S.Rm.Nachiappan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Mohamed Zakariya S S Vs The Authorised Officer

Mohamed Zakariya S S Vs The Authorised Officer