IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.04.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P. No.8210 of 2022

and

W.M.P.No.8212 of 2022

D.Jayakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by

1. The Inspector General of Registration,

100, Santhome High Raod,

Chennai-28.

2. The District Registrar,

Villupuram District,

Collectorate Buildings,

Villupuram-605602.

3. The Joint Sub-Registrar-I,

O/o Sub-Registrar-I,

Villupuram-605602.

4. D.Vasanth Kumar

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,

calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Document

No.3595 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 on the file of the 3^rd

respondent and quash the same and issue appropriate direction

for the 1^st respondent to accord sanction for the petitioner to

prosecute the 3^rd respondent on the basis of petitioner's

petition on 06.02.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajendran

For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish

Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a

Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the

impugned Document No.3595 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 on the file

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

of the 3^rd respondent and quash the same and issue appropriate

direction for the 1^st respondent to accord sanction for the

petitioner to prosecute the 3^rd respondent on the basis of

petitioner's petition on 06.02.2022.

2. The learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice

for the official respondent. In view of the limited relief

sought for in this petition and on the consent of the learned

counsel appearing on either side, this petition is taken up for

final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a

suit in O.S.No.199 of 2012, for partition as against his father

and other Co-Sharers in respect of HUF properties, on

10.08.2012. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional

District Court (FTC), on the basis of the alleged will and a

Kurchit, on 30.09.2021. Without verifying the finality of the

decree, the 3^rd respondent registered the decree as Doc.No.3595

of 2021, on 16.11.2021. Challenging the said document, the

present Writ Petition is filed with the aforesaid prayer.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though the 3^rd respondent is a party in the suit he was not

represented by any counsel before this Court and the certified

copy of the decree was made ready on 22.11.2021. Whereas the

decree was registered on 16.11.2021, prior to the decree made

ready. He further submitted that the property mentioned in the

document is not co-related to the property mentioned in the

suit, however erroneously registering the decree is not

sustainable.

5. Per Contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that as per

Section 23 of the Registration Act, any decree presented before

the respondent officials has to be registered in terms of the

decree passed by the trial Court, after collecting necessary

charges and stamp duties. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he has

to challenge the decre before the appellate Court. Without

challenging the decree before the appellate Court, filing this

writ petition is not sustainable. He further submitted that the

registration officials has bound to act as per the Registration

Act and no provision is available to refuse to register the

decree.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.199

of 2012, for partition and the said suit was dismissed on

16.11.2021 and thereafter the said decree was registered in

terms of Section 23 of the Registration Act. Hence, there is no

violation of rules by the 3^rd respondent. Hence,