Disposed¶35

Gunasundari v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC6 Mar 2025WP/3086/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; registration restraint; Sub-Registrar Tiruvannamalai Joint-II-SRO; protest petition 14.11.2024; notice to objector before registration; Survey Nos.26/1A and 26/1B Athiyandal Village 8.26 acres; civil court decree O.S.No.261/2005 / A.S.No.8; Inspector General of Registration; District Registrar Tiruvannamalai; Article 226 writ; disposed with directions; no costs; W.M.P.No.3376 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with directions: the protest petition dated 14.11.2024 shall be considered whenever any document touching the subject property is presented for registration before the third respondent; the petitioner shall be put on notice; the third respondent to decide on its own merits and in accordance with law. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.3376 of 2025) closed. ¶35

Gunasundari Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue forbearing the third respondent (Sub-Registrar, Tiruvannamalai Joint-II-SRO) from registering any further documents/transactions concerning the subject property at Athiyandal Village (Survey Nos.26/1A and 26/1B, 8.26 acres), in view of the civil court decree and the petitioner's protest petition dated 14.11.2024.

¶26

Court's answer

As and when any document is presented for registration before the third respondent touching upon the subject property, the petitioner's protest petition dated 14.11.2024 shall be taken into consideration.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall be put on notice, and thereafter the third respondent shall take a decision on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J., 06.03.2025) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 in which the petitioner sought a mandamus restraining the Sub-Registrar, Tiruvannamalai Joint-II-SRO (R3) from registering further transactions over Survey Nos.26/1A and 26/1B, Athiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai District (8.26 acres), relying on a civil-court Judgment and Decree dated 05.11.2011 (O.S.No.261/2005; appeal number printed variously as A.S.No.8 of 2021/A.S.No.8 of 2011) and on a protest petition dated 14.11.2024 that had not been acted upon. The Court did not grant an absolute prohibition on registration; it directed that whenever any document touching the subject property is presented for registration before R3, the protest petition dated 14.11.2024 shall be taken into consideration, the petitioner shall be put on notice, and R3 shall take a decision on its own merits and in accordance with law. Petition disposed of in those terms; no costs; connected W.M.P.No.3376 of 2025 closed.

¶1

W.P.No.3086 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.3086 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.3376 of 2025

Gunasundari

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 28.

¶12

The District Registrar, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶13

The Sub-Registrar, Tiruvannamalai Joint-II-SRO, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶14

P.Anbazhagan (Late)

¶15

Parimala

¶16

Balaguru ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to forbear the third respondent from registering any further transactions concerning the property

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.3086 of 2025

¶21

located in Athiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai District, bearing Survey Nos.26/1A and 26/1B, measuring a total extent of 8.26 acres, based upon the petitioner's protest petition dated 14.11.2024 and in accordance with the Judgment and Decree dated 05.11.2011 passed by the learned Principal SubJudge, Tiruvannamalai, in A.S.No.8 of 2021 in O.S.No.261/2005 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Hari

¶23

For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate

¶24

For R4 & R5 : No appearance

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the third respondent from registering any document touching upon the subject property.

¶27

Heard Mr.R.Hari, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶28

Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

¶29

The petitioner is placing reliance upon the Judgment and

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.3086 of 2025

¶33

Decree passed in O.S.No.261 of 2005 and A.S.No.8 of 2011 and the grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the Judgment and Decree passed by the competent civil court, the private respondents are attempting to deal with the property. Therefore, the petitioner gave a protest petition dated 14.11.2024. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this court.

¶34

In the considered view of this court, as and when any document is presented for registration before the third respondent touching upon the subject property, the protest petition given by the petitioner dated 14.11.2024 shall be taken into consideration and the petitioner shall be put on notice and thereafter the third respondent shall take a decision on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶35