BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD) No.6215 of 2025 V.Joseph ... Petitioner Vs

1 The District Registrar, Tenkasi District.

2 The Sub Registrar, Idaikkal Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi District.

3 P.Dhanapal ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent not to register any document in respect of petitioner's property situated in S. Nos.181/1, 181/3, 180/1, 180/2, 180/3, and 180/4 at Aaikudi Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District, till the disposal of the appeal suit in A.S.No.45/2023 pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property at Survey Nos.181/1, 181/3, 180/1, 180/2, 180/3, and 180/4 of Aaikudi Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District.

2. The above said property had been purchased by one S.Jaganathan pursuant to a court auction in E.P.No.1 of 1976 in O.S.No.23 of 1974 on the file of District Munsif Court, Shenkottai. He obtained a sale certificate from the court on 08.10.1976. Thereafter, Jaganathan appointed one K.Rajagopal, as his Power Agent. The said Rajagopal alienated the property in favour of the petitioner's minor sons, namely, Antony Gesson and Antony Boscow. The alienation was made on 15.11.2000 and registered as Document No.959/2000. The sons, in turn, settled the property in favour of the petitioner on 26.06.2012. The Settlement Deed has been registered on the file of the second respondent / Sub-Registrar in Document No.2405/2012.

3. Subsequently, a civil dispute arose between the petitioner and the third respondent. The third respondent presented O.S.No.119 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif Court at Shenkottai. He sought for a decree of declaration and injunction that the property situated in Survey No.180/2 belonged to him. After hot contest, the suit came to be dismissed by the learned District Munsif on 06.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent seems to have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2023 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge at Tenkasi.

4. Pending the proceedings, the petitioner got to know that the third respondent is attempting to alienate the property. Hence, he gave an objection to the second respondent, stating he should not entertain any document with respect to the properties mentioned above till the disposal of A.S.No.45 of 2023 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi. As the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

5. I have heard Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Government Advocate, for Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, for the official respondents.

6. Mr.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan invites my attention to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. According to him, Section 52 bars alienation of any property, pending litigation. He urges that since Section 52 bars such alienation, Section 22 B (2) of the Registration Act would operate. Under Section 22 B (2), he points out that where alienation is barred under Central or State Act, the Sub-Registrar is prevented from receiving any document for registration. He states that the amendment has come into force in the year 2022 and, therefore, post that amendment, when any suit is pending, alienation should not be permitted.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan.

8. The sheet anchor of the case of Mr.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan is that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act bars alienation, pending litigation.

9. A careful perusal of Section 52 would show that an immovable property, which is directly and specifically in question in any suit, cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt