Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Rajapandi S Vs The Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
Rajapandi S Vs The Sub RegistrarRajapandi S v. The Sub Registrar

Disposed¶31

Rajapandi S v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC27 Nov 2025WP(MD)/32724/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registration/encumbrance obstruction writ petition, Madras High Court Madurai Bench, decided 27.11.2025, single judge (G.R.Swaminathan). Petitioners S.Rajapandi, S.Palpandi, S.Pandiammal, S.Palaniammal, S.Nagajothi, S.Tamilsevli versus Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai and Kalaimagal Sabha. Prayer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of mandamus to remove 2nd remark in Doc No.890/1991 and remove S.No.45/3A from encumbrance certificate dated 23.10.2025, based on decree dated 13.04.2015 in OS No.453 of 2012 (District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, decreed exparte in favour of Guruvammal, mother of petitioners) and No Objection Certificate by 2nd respondent dated 03.11.2023. Court held that as the decree holds good, the registering officer cannot object when the petitioners present documents on the ground that Kalaimagal Sabha has a claim; direction to registering officer protects petitioners' rights. Disposed of; no costs. Keywords: Sub Registrar objection, encumbrance certificate remark removal, exparte decree, patta/title documents 52/1978 and 929/1982, partition deed 4555 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the registering officer (Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai) consistent with the prayer - removal of the 2nd remark in Doc No.890/1991 and removal of S.No.45/3A from the encumbrance certificate; no costs. ¶31

Why is it important?

Because the decree in O.S.No.453 of 2012 continues to hold good, the registering officer cannot object to, or obstruct, presentation and registration of documents by the writ petitioners on the ground that Kalaimagal Sabha has a claim over the property. ¶30

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the registering officer (Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai) consistent with the prayer - removal of the 2nd remark in Doc No.890/1991 and removal of S.No.45/3A from the encumbrance certificate; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st respondent (Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai) should be directed to remove the 2nd remark found in Doc No.890/1991 and to remove S.No.45/3A from the encumbrance certificate, notwithstanding the entry in favour of the 2nd respondent (Kalaimagal Sabha).

Court's answer

Because the decree in O.S.No.453 of 2012 continues to hold good, the registering officer cannot object to, or obstruct, presentation and registration of documents by the writ petitioners on the ground that Kalaimagal Sabha has a claim over the property.

Ratio / Principle

The direction given to the registering officer in this writ petition should more than protect the rights of the writ petitioners.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; G.R.Swaminathan, J.; decided 27.11.2025) - Six siblings claiming title through their late mother Guruvammal (Documents Nos.52/1978 & 929/1982; partition deed Document No.4555 of 2023) sought mandamus under Article 226 to direct the Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai to remove the 2nd remark in Doc No.890/1991 and remove S.No.45/3A from the encumbrance certificate dated 23.10.2025, which reflected a claim of Kalaimagal Sabha based on the decree dated 13.04.2015 passed exparte in O.S.No.453 of 2012 (District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam) in Guruvammal's favour. Holding: since the decree holds good till date, the registering officer cannot raise any objection when documents are presented by the petitioners on the ground that Kalaimagal Sabha claims the property; the direction given to the registering officer should more than protect the petitioners' rights. Writ petition disposed of accordingly; no costs.

A

W.P(MD)No.32724 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 27.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

W.P(MD)No.32724 of 2025

1.S.Rajapandi

2.S.Palpandi

3.S.Pandiammal

4.S.Palaniammal

5.S.Nagajothi

6.S.Tamilsevli ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai.

2.Kalaimagal Sabha, Through its Special Officer, 17, North Usman Road, T Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to remove 2nd remark found in the Doc No.890/1991 registered on the file of the 1st respondent and to remove S.No.45/3A from the encumbrance certificate

1/4

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

W.P(MD)No.32724 of 2025

dated 23.10.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent based on the decree dated 13.04.2015 passed in OS No.453 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and on the strength of the No Objection Certificate issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 03.11.2023.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R1 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R2

ORDER

Heard both sides.

The writ petitioners have claimed title over the petition mentioned

property. They trace their title to the documents dated 01.02.1978 and 30.07.1982 (Document Nos.52/1978 & 929/1982). The property was purchased by the petitioner's mother Guruvammal. Patta was in her name. Guruvammal passed away and thereafter, it was devolved on the writ petitioners herein and respective shares were also set out in the partition deed dated 01.12.2023. That was also registered as Document No.4555 of 2023. While so, the petitioners are unable to deal with the property on account of the entry in the name of the second respondent herein. In fact, the petitioner's mother Guruvammal filed

2/4

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

W.P(MD)No.32724 of 2025

O.S.No.453 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thriumangalam seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed exparte on 13.04.2015. Till date, the decree is holding good. Since the decree is holding good, the registering officer cannot raise any objection when any document is presented by the writ petitioners herein on the ground that Kalaimagal Sabha is having a claim over the property. The direction given to the registering officer in this writ petition should more than protect the rights of the writ petitioners herein.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

27.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

To

The Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai.

3/4

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

W.P(MD)No.32724 of 2025

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi

W.P(MD)No.32724 of 2025

27.11.2025

4/4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the 1st respondent (Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai) should be directed to remove the 2nd remark found in Doc No.890/1991 and to remove S.No.45/3A from the encumbrance certificate, notwithstanding the entry in favour of the 2nd respondent (Kalaimagal Sabha).¶16
The court held
Because the decree in O.S.No.453 of 2012 continues to hold good, the registering officer cannot object to, or obstruct, presentation and registration of documents by the writ petitioners on the ground that Kalaimagal Sabha has a claim over the property.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶16

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Encumbrance certificate dated 23.10.2025 issued by the 1st respondent bearing a second remark in respect of Doc No.890/1991 and showing S.No.45/3A as encumbered, based on the decree dated 13.04.2015 in OS No.453 of 2012 passed by the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.¶20
Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai · 23.10.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioners trace title to property purchased by their mother Guruvammal under documents dated 01.02.1978 and 30.07.1982 (Document Nos.52/1978 & 929/1982); patta stood in her name; after her death the property devolved on the petitioners and shares were set out in a partition deed dated 01.12.2023 registered as Document No.4555 of 2023.¶26
Prior proceeding
Guruvammal (petitioners' mother) had filed O.S.No.453 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam seeking declaration and permanent injunction; the suit was decreed exparte on 13.04.2015 and, till date, the decree holds good.¶30

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
S.Rajapandi¶7
petitioner
S.Palpandi¶8
petitioner
S.Pandiammal¶9
petitioner
S.Palaniammal¶10
petitioner
S.Nagajothi¶11
petitioner
S.Tamilsevli¶12
V.Shathurthi Raja
respondent
The Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai.¶14
S.Shanmugavel
respondent
Kalaimagal Sabha, Through its Special Officer, 17, North Usman Road, T Nagar, Chennai 600 017.¶15
N.Dilipkumar

Coram

AI extract

G.R.SWAMINATHANauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 27 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 13 Nov 2025
Case no.: WP(MD)/32724/2025
CNR: HCMD011649332025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: G.r.swaminathan
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: W.P(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan

Rengammal Vs The District Registrar
26 Nov 2025
L.Anusha v.Mary Vs The Inspector General of the Registration
26 Nov 2025
Sai Sabhari Services Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer 1
26 Nov 2025
M.Azis Raja Vs The Commissioner
27 Nov 2025
Tvl. Ss Infrastructure and Co., Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
27 Nov 2025
Anbarasan Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer II
27 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Rajapandi S v. The Sub Registrar, WP(MD)/32724/2025 (MAD), decided on 27 November 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Encumbrance certificate dated 23.10.2025 issued by the 1st respondent bearing a second remark in respect of Doc No.890/1991 and showing S.No.45/3A as encumbered, based on the decree dated 13.04.2015 in OS No.453 of 2012 passed by the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.Sub Registrar, Kallikudi, Madurai · 23.10.2025
Petitioners trace title to property purchased by their mother Guruvammal under documents dated 01.02.1978 and 30.07.1982 (Document Nos.52/1978 & 929/1982); patta stood in her name; after her death the property devolved on the petitioners and shares were set out in a partition deed dated 01.12.2023 registered as Document No.4555 of 2023.
Guruvammal (petitioners' mother) had filed O.S.No.453 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam seeking declaration and permanent injunction; the suit was decreed exparte on 13.04.2015 and, till date, the decree holds good.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Parties & counsel