High Court · 2025

W.P.No.35805 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 22.10.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.35805 of 2025Alagesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District RegistrarKrishnagiiri District2. The Sub RegistrarVepanapalli, Krishnagiri3. Vennila4. Vis Sashwin5. S Mahin... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the 2nd respondent impugned refusal check slip no RFL /Veppanpalli /34/2025 dated 13.03.2025 and quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 13.03.2025.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 2025For Petitioner: Mr.M.Ashwin KumarFor Respondent: Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP for R1 & 2 Mr.D.Parthasarathy, for R3 to 5ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip dated 13.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the partition suit in OS.No.1009 of 1981 was filed in respect of the subject property before the District Court, Krishnagiri. In the said suit, the plaintiff is the daughter and 1st and 2nd defendants are the mother and step-mother of the plaintiff respectively. The said suit was decreed on 21.11.1982, whereby, 50% of share was allotted to the plaintiff and the remaining share was allotted to the 1st and 2nd defendants, who are vendors of the petitioner.3. Pursuant to the same, the aforesaid defendants 1 & 2 had sold the subject property to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 26.03.2012. 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 2025Now, the petitioner intends to sell the said property and executed a sale deed dated 06.11.2024 in favour of a 3rd party. When the petitioner presented his sale deed for the purpose of registration, the 2nd respondent had rejected the same vide impugned check slip dated 13.03.2025. Hence, this petition.4. By referring the 1st paragraph of the decree dated 21.04.1982 in OS.No.1009/81, wherein it was mentioned as “1. jhth brhj;Jf;fspy; thjpf;F ghjp ghj;jpak; cz;L vd;Wk; cWjp bra;Jk;”. he would submit that only half share of the subject property was allotted to the plaintiff. 5. Further, by referring the word “bkw;go ghjp” in the second serial number, he would submit that the said words refer to the share allotted to the petitioner vide first serial number and thus, the defendants 1 & 2 have rights over the remaining portion of the share though it was not mentioned in the decree. However, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent had refused to register the petitioner's sale deed by stating 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 2025that the subject property was already settled by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th and 5th respondents and thus, the petitioner has no right over the subject property. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.6. In reply, the learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that subsequent to the decree dated 21.04.1982, the subject property was sold to the 3rd respondent's vendor by the plaintiff of the aforesaid suit and thereafter, the 3rd respondent had purchased it from her vendor and settled the same in favour of 4th and 5th respondent.7. Further, by interpreting the decree dated 21.04.1982 of the Civil Court, he would submit that in the first serial number, it has been stated that 50% of the share was allotted to the plaintiff therein and the remaining portion is allotted as defendants 1 & 2 as life interest, which means, the defendants 1 & 2 can enjoy the possession of that portion during their lifetime. Thereafter, the plaintiff will only be entitled for the said remaining portion of the share. When such being the case, the defendants 1 & 2, who are petitioner's vendor, have no right to alienate 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 2025the property as per the decree passed by the Civil Court. However, without any authority or right over the property, they have alienated the same. Hence, the sale deed dated 26.03.2012 executed by them in favour of the petitioner will not have any sanctity. In such case, the respondent had rightly refused to register the petitioner's sale deed. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this petition.8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submit that in this case, since there is a dispute with regard to the entitlement of the property, the respective parties can very well approach the concerned Civil Court and sought for appropriate orders.9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.10. In the case on hand, initially, a partition suit was filed in respect of the subject property in OS.No.1009 of 1981, whereby, the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 2025plaintiff is daughter and the defendants 1 & 2 are mother and step-mother of the plaintiff. The said suit was ultimately decreed on 21.04.1982 as follows:“1. jhth brhj;Jf;fspy; thjpf;F ghjp ghj;jpak; cz;L vd;Wk; cWjp bra;Jk;2/ jhth bkw;go ghjp ghj;jpaijia 1. 2 vjph;thjpfs; Ma[Sf;F gpwF thjp mila ntz;oaJ3/ jhth brhj;jpy; 3k; vjph;thjpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 5 brz;l; epyj;jpd; kPJ thjpf;F vt;tpj ghpfhuKk; fpilahJ vd;Wk;4/ jhth 1. 2 vjph;thjpfs;. thjpf;F jhth bryt[ bjhifia U:/289/25 bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; Kjy; epiy ofphp bra;ag;l;L ,Uf;fpwJ” 11. A reading of the above would show that as per the first serial number, half share of the property will go to the plaintiff/daughter and as per the second serial number, the remaining half share will go to defendants 1 & 2 as life interest, which means, the defendants 1 & 2 can enjoy the possession of the said portion during their lifetime and thereafter, the said portion of the land will also goes to the plaintiff.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 202512. However, it was contended by the petitioner that the word “bkw;go ghjp” at the second serial number refers only to the half share of the plaintiff, which was allotted in first serial number. If the said contention is accepted, it would mean that the said decree was passed only in respect of the half share of the property and no decision was made with regard to the entitlement of the remaining portion. Therefore, the said interpretation made by the petitioner is not acceptable. 13. In the second serial number, it has been stated that “2/ jhth bkw;go ghjp ghj;jpaijia 1. 2 vjph;thjpfs; Ma[Sf;F gpwF thjp mila ntz;oaJ”which means, the remaining half portion of the land will goes to the defendants 1 & 2 as life interest, i.e., for their enjoyment during lifetime. After their lifetime, the said portion of land will go to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner's vendors are only entitled to enjoy the property during their lifetime and they have no right to sell the said property. However, contrary to the same, they had executed the sale 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 2025deed as early as on 26.03.2012, to and in favour of the petitioner, without any authority.14. As discussed above, without having any title the petitioner's vendor had sold the property to the petitioner as early as on 26.03.2012. Now, the petitioner is intend to alienate the said property by virtue of sale deed dated 06.11.2024 and presented the same before the 2nd respondent for the purpose of registration. Under these circumstances only, the 2nd respondent had rejected the same by stating that the property was already settled by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th and 5th respondents. 15. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any fault in the decision making process of the 2nd respondent while rejecting the petitioner's sale deed, which was presented for the purpose of registration. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.16. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 202522.10.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaTo1. The District RegistrarKrishnagiiri District2. The Sub RegistrarVepanapalli, Krishnagiri9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35805 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.35805 of 202522.10.202510/10