P.V.Ravi v. The District Registrar (Administration)
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Jan 2025
- Bench
- P T ASHA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33.P.Palanivelu4.A.Ramasamy... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 02.05.2024, issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.147/2024 and consequential communication dated 25.11.2024 issued…
- Para 44. A perusal of the records would show that the impugned rejection order dated 02.05.2024 was served on the petitioner only on 14.05.2024 and the appeal had been preferred by the petitioner as early as on 12.06.2024, and the same has been stated in the…
Judgment
W.P.No. 2133 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 29.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAW.P.No.2133 of 2025and WMP.No.2492 of 2025P.V.Ravi.... Petitioner Vs1.The District Registrar (Administration) Namakkal.
The Sub Registrar Pudhuchathiram Namakkal District.
P.Palanivelu4.A.Ramasamy... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 02.05.2024, issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.147/2024 and consequential communication dated 25.11.2024 issued by the first respondent in Letter No.3676/Aa1/2024 and to quash the same with consequential direction directing the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 08.12.2023 presented for registration by the 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 2133 of 2025petitioner in pending Doc. No.41/2023, within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner: Mr.S.SenthilFor Respondents: Ms.C.Meera Arumugam Additional Government Pleader [R1 &R2]ORDERThe writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 02.05.2024, issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.147/2024 and consequential communication dated 25.11.2024 issued by the first respondent in Letter No.3676/Aa1/2024 and to quash the same with consequential direction directing the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 08.12.2023 presented for registration by the petitioner in pending Doc.
No.41/2023, within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court. "2. The brief facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is that :a)A certain Karuppa Moopan had five sons namely (i) Nachi Moopan, 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 2133 of 2025(ii) Lakshmana Moopan (iii) Ramu Moopan (iv) Sengodan and (v) Kali Moopan. b)The property comprised in Old S.No.154/5, measuring an extent of 4.92 acres; Old S.No.154/6 measuring an extent of 6.21 acres, New S.No.247/5A measuring an extent of 2.35 acres; S.No.247/5B measuring 2.44 acres; S.No.247/5C measuring 3.02 acres, S.No.247/5E measuring 1.78 acres and S.No.247/5D measuring 1.21 acres, admeasuring an extent of 10.80 acres in Kalyani Village, Namakkal Taluk , originally belonged to Urumayi Ammal and on she executing a sale deed in favour Nachi Moopan and Lakshmana Moopan on 26.07.1920, the property came to their hands and had acquired the character of joint family property.c)On 30.09.1920, Sengodan and Kali Moopan conveyed their shares in the aforesaid property i.e., 2/5th share in favour of his other brothers namely (i) Nachi Moopan, (ii) Lakshmana Moopan (iii) Ramu Moopan, and therefore, they became the co-owners of the property having 1/3 share each.
Patta in respect of the said property was also issued in the names of Nachi Moopan, Lakshmana Moopan and 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 2133 of 2025 Ramu Moopan. d)Be that as it may, sometime in 1983, the son of Rama Moopan namely one Kattiyanna Nadar filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.15/1983 for partition before the District Munsif, Rasipuram, against the legal heirs of Nachimoopan and Lakshmana Moopan, and the suit was decreed. Accordingly, the branches are entitled to 1/3 share, and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the Sub Court, Namakkal in A.S.No.164 of 1994, and finally by this Court in S.A.No.931 of 1999.e)It would be relevant to state that Lakshmana Moopan had five children namely Perumal, Sengottaiyan, Karuppannan, Kandasamy and Palaniyammal and each of them are entitled to 1/15 share.. f)Of the shares allotted to them, the four children of Lakshmana Moopan, namely Kandasamy, Sengottaiyann, Karuppannan and Palaniyammal decided to sell their 4/15th share to the petitioner herein and a sale deed dated 08.12.2023 was executed. g)The sale deed was presented before the second respondent on 08.12.2023, however the same was kept pending in Doc.
No.41 of 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 2133 of 20252023, and the impugned rejection order came to be passed on 02.05.2024, on the basis of an objection petition being filed by the third respondent, the grandson of Lakshmana Moopan, and the fourth respondent, the great grandson of Ramu Moopan. The rejection was also on the ground that the third respondent had filed an appeal petition before the first respondent for cancellation of the original sale deed executed in favour of Nachi Moopan and Lakshmana Moopan in the year 1920, and the same was pending. It further states that there is no clarity about the shares as no partition deed was executed for more than 100 years in respect of the said property. h)Aggrieved by the refusal of the second respondent to register the document, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 12.06.2024, who vide his proceedings dated 25.11.2024, had dismissed the appeal petition on the ground that the same is barred by limitation as it has been filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the order. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 2133 of 20253. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
A perusal of the records would show that the impugned rejection order dated 02.05.2024 was served on the petitioner only on 14.05.2024 and the appeal had been preferred by the petitioner as early as on 12.06.2024, and the same has been stated in the appeal grounds itself in Reference No.1. This factum has not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority, the first respondent. Further, the petitioner has sought for an information under Right to Information Act, as to the date on which the impugned rejection order was received by the petitioner, and in the reply, it has been stated that it was on 14.05.2024. The details of which is extracted below :bghUs; bjhlh; ghf ghh; itapy; fhdqk; j';fsJ jfty; mwpa[k; chpikr; rl; lk; 2005 fPHhd kDtpy; nfhug; gl;l tpgu';fSf;F fPH;f;fz; lthW jfty; tH';fg; gLfpwJ/nfs; tp vz;/kDjhuh; nfhhpa jfty; mspf; fg; gLk; jfty;1/vdf;F j';fSila mYtyf epYit Mtz vz;/41-2023 Mtzk; kWjypf; fg; gl;L gjpt[ kWg;g[ vz;/03-2024?d;go gjpt[ kWf;fg; gl; Ls;sJ/ nkw; go Mtzj; ij ehd; j';fSila mYtyfj; jpy; jpUk;g bgw;w njjp kw; Wk; mjw; fhd gjptpid jfty; mwpa[k; chpik rl; lj; jpd; fPH; rhd; wpl;L tH';FkhW nfl; Lbfhs; fpnwd;/ mjw; fhd fl; lzj; ij jh';fs; vdf;F jfty; bjhptpj; jt[ld; brYj;jt[k; rk; kjpf; fpnwd;/epYit Mtz vz;/41-2023 MdJ gjpt[ kWj;jspf; fg; gl;L kDjhuh; Mfpa j';fSf;F 14/05/2024 md;W jpUk;g tH';fg; gl; lJ vd;w jfty; tH';fg; gLfpwJ/6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 2133 of 20255.In the light of the above, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 25.11.2024 by Letter No.3676/Aa1/2024 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The first respondent is directed to take on file the appeal petition and pass orders within a period of six weeks. The second respondent is also directed to register the sale deed dated 08.12.2023, within a period of two weeks thereafter, from the date of its re-presentation.6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.29.01.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NodsTo:1.The District Registrar (Administration) Namakkal. 2. The Sub Registrar7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 2133 of 2025 Pudhuchathiram Namakkal District.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 2133 of 2025P.T.ASHA, J.,dsW.P.No. 2133 of 202529.01.20259/9
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Right to Information Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 29 Jan 2025. The bench was P T ASHA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.