IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.06.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P.No.5638 of 2024 K.Ayyavoo ... Petitioner versus

1.The Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram SRO, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.

2.A.Saravanan ... Respondents Prayer: 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 Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Rasipuram/29/2024 dated 15.02.2024 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to register the Partition Deed dated

15.02.2024 presented by the petitioner and his two sons.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent No.1 : Mr.P.Anandhakumar Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the refusal slip dated

15.02.2024 issued by the first respondent, whereby he refused to register the Partition Deed presented by the petitioner for registration.

2. Counter has been filed by the first respondent to the effect that, since the order of the Civil Court was served on them, they refused to register the Partition Deed. As per Section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908, no document could be registered in respect of the property which is attached permanently or provisionally by a competent authority. Hence, it is submitted that the refusal slip is valid in the eyes of law.

3. Though the attachment is a bar for registration of documents under Section 22-B, this Court, considering the various decisions in this regard, has analysed Section 22-B and dealt the matter in Subramani Vs. The Sub-Registrar in W.P.No.11056 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024 wherein it is held as follows:-

“27. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Balachandran v. A.M.Muthyyan Mudaliar reported in (1974) 87 LW 812, held as follows:-

“It is abundantly clear that neither S. 64 of the Code nor the corresponding provision in the earlier enactments made private alienation void for all purposes. S. 64 specifically says that the transaction is void only as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. As pointed out in the first of the cases quoted above a private alienation when an attachment is in force is, not void against the whole world.”

4. Similarly, this Court, in Palanivel Vs. Registrar reported in

2021 (5) MLJ 715 has held as follows:-

“18. In MANU/SC/0024/1985 : (1985) 2 SCC 167 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

30. The consequence of attachment of certain shares of a company held by a share holder for purposes of sale in a proceeding under Section 149 of the Land Revenue Act is more or less the same. The effect of an order of attachment is what Section 149 of the Land Revenue Act itself says. Such attachment is made according to the law in force for the time being for the attachment and sale of movable property under the decree of a civil court. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 says that except those items of property mentioned in its proviso, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities of money, debts, shares in a corporation and all other saleable property, moveable or immovable, belonging to a judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment- debtor, or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf, is liable for attachment and sale in execution of a decree against him. Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, states that where an attachment of a property is made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment debtor of any debt, dividend or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforc