Writ appeal against registration and release of a sale document over land in which the appellant claimed pipeline easement rights. The Division Bench held he could not challenge registration without disputing title, easement claims belong to the civil suit, and dismissed the appeal.
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.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025 and
C.M.P(MD)No.14398 of 2025
P.Ramaraj ... Appellant/4th Respondent
Vs.
1.V.Nallamayan ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.10805 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025 on the file of this Court.
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ganagurunathan for Mr.K.Samidurai For R – 1 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R – 2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The present appellant is R4 in Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent in this Appeal, challenging the order passed by the Sub Registrar, Andipatti, Theni, being a refusal check slip bearing No.RFL/Andipatti/21/2025 dated 29.03.2025 and a consequential direction to the Sub-Registrar to register and release the document within a time frame to be fixed by the Court.
2.The subject matter in the Writ Petition pertains to the land in Survey No.393/1 admeasuring 1 acre 64 cents (hereinafter referred to as 'land/subject land'). There is no dispute as regards the ownership of the subject land, which stood transferred by the original owner to R2 and R3
2/7
W.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025
in Writ Petition. They are stated to have sold the land subsequently to the writ petitioner, arrayed as R1 before us. The only claim by the appellant relates to an agreement which he claims to have entered into with the original vendor regarding a water pipeline that purportedly runs beneath the subject property.
3.The appellant would submit that he has been using the pipeline for agricultural purposes in his land which adjoins the subject land for the past more than four decades. According to him, the private respondents propose to lay a road upon the subject land for providing access to plots that have been laid in the subject property. In such circumstances, he apprehends that he would not be in a position to repair the pipeline as necessary.
4.The learned Judge, while disposing the Writ Petition on 07.07.2025, has noted the pendency of a civil suit in O.S.No.58 of 2020 on the file of the Aundipatti Munsif Court, Theni District. She was of the view that there is nothing erroneous in the registration of the document
3/7
W.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025
as sought for and directed release of the document within a period of four weeks. As regards the issues raised in the suit, the parties were directed to pursue the same in accordance with law. We do not find nothing untoward in the order of the writ Court for the following reasons:
(i) The appellant does not dispute the title of the private respondents to the subject property. In such circumstances, he cannot be legitimately aggrieved by the laying of a road over the property.
(ii) The argument of the appellant that the original owner ought
to have disclosed the registered agreement entered into by him with the original owner for using the pipeline, does not appeal to us for the reason that that agreement is not before the Court and hence, the Court is unaware of the contents of the same.
(iii) The plaint which has been produced before us does not
disclose any prayer in regard to any easementary right that the appellant may hold in regard to land running over the pipeline and hence we do not
4/7
W.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025
find it appropriate for this Court to consider any such right in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(iv) Needless to state, the observations made in this Writ Appeal are only qua the present litigation and shall not affect the outcome of the civil suit.
5.In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the writ Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 01.09.2025
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ps
5/7
W.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025
To
The Sub-Registrar, Aundipatti, Theni District.
6/7
W.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ps
W.A.(MD)No.2498 of 2025
01.09.2025
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court's direction to the Sub-Registrar to register and release a sale document could be interfered with where the appellant's claimed pipeline/easement rights are pending in a civil s
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Ramaraj
V.Nallamayan
The Sub-Registrar, Aundipatti, Theni District
P.Jeyachandran
R.Sivakumar
Anita Sumanth
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
