SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 26742

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
Elango. A – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar – Respondent


O R D E R

Challenge has been made to the refusal slip issued by the first respondent refusing to register the sale deed dated 14.06.2022 on the ground that the temple authorities has issued notice stating that the property belong to the HR & CE Department.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ryotwari patta was granted in favour of two individuals, namely Lakshmiammal and Govindammal under Section 8 (2)(i)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 [Tamilnadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act] in respect of the subject property in S.No.189/2 to the extent of 4.2 Acres. Thereafter, Lakshmiammal sold her share in favour of Govindammal on 22.01.1981 and further, the property had been dealt by the said individual and several alienations also took place. All the revenue records stands in the name of the parties. When the documents were presented for registration, at this stage, merely on the basis of some letter addressed by the authorities, the registration has been refused. Hence this writ petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the HR & CE Department, on instruction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top