High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
W.P.No.24629 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.07.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No.24629 of 2025Mrs.Saroja ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai-600 028.2.The District Registrar, Virudhachalam District, Cuddalore.3.The Sub Registrar, Sirupakkam, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore- 606 108. ... RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in NA.KA.No.228/2025 dated 19.06.2025 and quash the same and further _________Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025direct the respondent to entertain the Settlement Deed dated 05.06.2025 for registration and register the same and pass orders. For Petitioner(s):Mr.K.Raju For Respondent(s): Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate O R D E RBy consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal slip dated 19.06.2025 issued by third respondent, whereby the settlement deed dated 05.06.2025 was refused to be registered, on the premise that a suit in OS No.105 of 2025 is pending, in respect of the subject property.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above suit itself was preferred on 13.06.2025, while the settlement deed was presented on 05.06.2025 and the impugned order was passed on 19.06.2025 and there is no interim order in the above suit. It was submitted that mere pendency of a suit is not a bar for registration of a settlement deed unless _________Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025there is an interim order of any court, in respect of the subject property. In this regard, reliance was sought to be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam vs The Inspector General of Registration, reported in [2021 (1) CTC 535], wherein it was held as under: "10. The 5th respondent has approached the Civil Court and has filed O.S.No.48 of 2019, seeking for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/27th share in the suit properties. It is also seen that the 5th respondent has filed yet another suit in OS.No.58 of 2017 in which she has claimed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defects not to alienate the suit properties. In both the suits, there is no order passed by the competent Civil Court injuncting from dealing with the suit properties. What the 5th respondent was not able to achieve before the Civil Court is now sought to be achieved through the 3rd respondent by virtue of a letter given before this Court dated 21.02.2020. The 3rd respondent is a statutory authority, who has to strictly perform his function in accordance with law. This Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can never prevent a statutory authority from performing his function. Therefore unless and otherwise a competent civil court passes any interim order _________Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025restraining the alienation of the property, the 3rd respondent has to entertain the documents and register the same, if it is otherwise in order. Ultimately, even if the suit is decreed, the transaction will be subject to the rule of lis pendens. There is no law in force which says that no transaction can take place during the pendency of the suit. That exactly why Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, provides a solution for transactions that take place during the pendency of the suit."4. When this was pointed out, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that the petitioner may file an affidavit before the third respondent stating that there is no interim order in the above suit and re-present the settlement deed dated 05.06.2025. On such filing of an affidavit, they would re-hear the matter, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the other protest applicants and thereafter, proceed with the registration of the said settlement deed, if it is otherwise in order, in the light of judgment of this court in the case of Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam vs The Inspector General of Registration, (supra), within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. If, for any reason, the _________Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025Sub Registrar is of the view that the registration ought to be refused, he would do so after assigning reasons, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.5. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 19.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the third respondent stating that there is no interim order in the above suit and represent the settlement deed dated 05.06.2025. On such filing of an affidavit, the third respondent shall re-hear the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner and other protest applicants and thereafter, proceed with the registration of settlement deed, if it is otherwise in order, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam vs The Inspector General of Registration, cited supra. If for any reason, the respondent refuses to register the sale deed, he shall assign reasons in the refusal order, which was agreed to by both counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three _________Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025weeks from the date of filing of the affidavit by the petitioner.6. In the result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 08.07.2025NCC: Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Yes / NomrnTo1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai-600 028.2.The District Registrar, Virudhachalam District, Cuddalore.3.The Sub Registrar, Sirupakkam, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore- 606 108_________Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.mrnW.P.No.24629 of 202508.07.2025_________Page 7 of 7
W.P.No.24629 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.07.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No.24629 of 2025Mrs.Saroja ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai-600 028.2.The District Registrar, Virudhachalam District, Cuddalore.3.The Sub Registrar, Sirupakkam, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore- 606 108. ... RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in NA.KA.No.228/2025 dated 19.06.2025 and quash the same and further _________Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025direct the respondent to entertain the Settlement Deed dated 05.06.2025 for registration and register the same and pass orders. For Petitioner(s):Mr.K.Raju For Respondent(s): Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate O R D E RBy consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal slip dated 19.06.2025 issued by third respondent, whereby the settlement deed dated 05.06.2025 was refused to be registered, on the premise that a suit in OS No.105 of 2025 is pending, in respect of the subject property.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above suit itself was preferred on 13.06.2025, while the settlement deed was presented on 05.06.2025 and the impugned order was passed on 19.06.2025 and there is no interim order in the above suit. It was submitted that mere pendency of a suit is not a bar for registration of a settlement deed unless _________Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025there is an interim order of any court, in respect of the subject property. In this regard, reliance was sought to be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam vs The Inspector General of Registration, reported in [2021 (1) CTC 535], wherein it was held as under: "10. The 5th respondent has approached the Civil Court and has filed O.S.No.48 of 2019, seeking for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/27th share in the suit properties. It is also seen that the 5th respondent has filed yet another suit in OS.No.58 of 2017 in which she has claimed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defects not to alienate the suit properties. In both the suits, there is no order passed by the competent Civil Court injuncting from dealing with the suit properties. What the 5th respondent was not able to achieve before the Civil Court is now sought to be achieved through the 3rd respondent by virtue of a letter given before this Court dated 21.02.2020. The 3rd respondent is a statutory authority, who has to strictly perform his function in accordance with law. This Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can never prevent a statutory authority from performing his function. Therefore unless and otherwise a competent civil court passes any interim order _________Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025restraining the alienation of the property, the 3rd respondent has to entertain the documents and register the same, if it is otherwise in order. Ultimately, even if the suit is decreed, the transaction will be subject to the rule of lis pendens. There is no law in force which says that no transaction can take place during the pendency of the suit. That exactly why Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, provides a solution for transactions that take place during the pendency of the suit."4. When this was pointed out, learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that the petitioner may file an affidavit before the third respondent stating that there is no interim order in the above suit and re-present the settlement deed dated 05.06.2025. On such filing of an affidavit, they would re-hear the matter, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the other protest applicants and thereafter, proceed with the registration of the said settlement deed, if it is otherwise in order, in the light of judgment of this court in the case of Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam vs The Inspector General of Registration, (supra), within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. If, for any reason, the _________Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025Sub Registrar is of the view that the registration ought to be refused, he would do so after assigning reasons, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.5. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 19.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the third respondent stating that there is no interim order in the above suit and represent the settlement deed dated 05.06.2025. On such filing of an affidavit, the third respondent shall re-hear the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner and other protest applicants and thereafter, proceed with the registration of settlement deed, if it is otherwise in order, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vadamugam Vellode Nalukarai Nattu Goundergal Sangam vs The Inspector General of Registration, cited supra. If for any reason, the respondent refuses to register the sale deed, he shall assign reasons in the refusal order, which was agreed to by both counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three _________Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025weeks from the date of filing of the affidavit by the petitioner.6. In the result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 08.07.2025NCC: Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Yes / NomrnTo1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai-600 028.2.The District Registrar, Virudhachalam District, Cuddalore.3.The Sub Registrar, Sirupakkam, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore- 606 108_________Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24629 of 2025MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.mrnW.P.No.24629 of 202508.07.2025_________Page 7 of 7