ORDER :

1. The relief ought for in the present writ petition is to direct the fourth respondent to register and release a Sale Deed Document P.No.117/2021 presented for registration dated 21.04.2021 before the fourth respondent and handover the Sale Deed to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that she is the purchaser of the subject property and in this regard, the vendor one Mr.G.Jaganathan presented a Sale Deed before the fourth respondent-Sub Registrar for registration under the provisions of the Registration Act. The said document was not registered and the fourth respondent refused to register the same on the ground that a suit in O.S.No.265 of 2021 is pending. Citing the said reasons, the fourth respondent refused to register the document. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the subject property sought to be registered through the Sale Deed dated 21.04.2021 is no way connected with the civil suit nor the petitioner and her vendor are the parties to the civil suit. The suit number itself has been erroneously stated by the Sub-Registrar as O.S.No.265 of 2021 and in fact the Interlocutory Application (I.A.) has been numbered as 265 of 2021. The suit is numbered as O.S.No.509 of 2014.

4. It is further contended that the Survey Number of the subject property in the Sale Deed is S.No.23/2A1 and the suit schedule property in the said civil suit is 23/2. The property sought to be registered through the Sale Deed by the petitioner was sub-divided as Survey No.23/2A1 and a separate patta has been issued in respect of the subject property sought to be registered through the Sale Deed.

5. Without even verifying these facts, the fourth respondent mechanically refused to register the document and therefore, the writ petition is to be allowed.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State contended that once the order of refusal is communicated, the petitioner is bound to prefer an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the writ petition is to be dismissed.

7. It is further stated that once the subject property is the subject matter of a civil suit, then the fourth respondent cannot register the document and therefore, the action initiated by the fourth respondent is in accordance with law.

8. Considering the arguments, this Court verified the copy of the plaint and the written statement enclosed in the typed set of papers with reference to O.S.No.509 of 2014 and I.A. No.265 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff Court, Poonamallee. The suit schedule property set out in O.S.No.509 of 2014 reads as under:-

“Schedule of Property

“A” Schedule

At Thiruvallur District, Poonamalle Taluk, Amudur Medu Village, Survey No.23/2 measuring 0.60 cents bounded on the North by the land belongs to Govindaraj, Swaminathan and Subramani, South by Rathinam Vagaiyara, East by Varadappa Naicker Land, West by Tank Bund.

“B” Schedule

At Thiruvallur District, Poonamalle Taluk, Amudur Medu Village, Survey No.23/2 measuring 0.15 cents bounded on the South by 0.30 cents in the same Survey field purchased by M.Kuppusamy under the Sale Deed dated 05.01.1965, West by Tank Bund, North by “C” Schedule mentioned property and East by Varadappa Naicker Land.

“C” Schedule

At Thiruvallur District, Poonamalle Taluk, Amudur Medu Village, Survey No.23/2 measuring 0.15 cents bounded on the South by “B” schedule property, West by Tank Bund, East by Varadappa Naicker Land and on the North by Govindaraj, Swaminathan and Subramani Land.”

9. The suit was instituted by Mr.P.Sivalingam (plaintiff) against 1.Tmt.G.Sumathi, 2.Mr.T.Radha, 3.Tmt.Manicka Valli, 4.Mr.Jambulingam and 5.Mr.Mohan (defendants).

10. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the petitioner Smt.Gnanambal and her vendor Mr.G.Jaganathan are not parties to the civil suit in O.S.No.509 of 2014. This apart, the schedule of the subject property in the Sale Deed is described