BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.A.(MD) No.3206 of 2025 Pappa ... Appellant -vs-

1.Axelin Thiraviyam

2.The District Registrar Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli

3.The Sub-Registrar Manapparai Tiruchirappalli District

4.The Tahsildar Manapparai Taluk Tiruchirappalli District

5.The Village Administrative Officer No.21, Sevalur Village Manapparai Taluk Tiruchirappalli District

6.The Firka Surveyor Manapparai Taluk Tiruchirappalli District

7.Danial Albert

8.S.Padmapriya ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 24.07.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.18677 of 2025, on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.T.M.Madasamy For Respondents : Mr.K.Kevinkaran for R1 Mr.Om Prakash Government Advocate for R2 to R6

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

When there is a property dispute between the first respondent /

writ petitioner, namely, Axelin Thiraviyam and his brother Daniel Albert / seventh respondent herein in respect of the property devolved upon them by a Will alleged to have been executed by their grandfather, namely Durairaj, dated 31.10.2005, the writ petitioner had created four sale deeds to different persons with regard to Plot Nos.34, 36, 37 and 38 and presented the sale deeds before the Sub Registrar, Manapparai, for registration. The Sub Registrar, Manapparai has rightly refused to register the document and issued refusal slip Nos.RFL/Manaparai/276, 275, 278 & 277/2024 dated

30.07.2024.

2. Challenging the said refusal slips, the writ petitioner filed four writ petitions seeking certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the Sub Registrar, Manapparai (second respondent in the writ petition), to quash the said refusal check slips as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the second respondent to register the sale deeds presented by the writ petitioner.

3. The learned Single Judge by way of a common order dated

24.07.2025, held that double entry for the same property is permissible under law; the Sub Registrar or the District Registrar cannot act as a Civil Court and cannot adjudicate the disputes relating to the title; and therefore, if any party is aggrieved, they are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court, quashed the refusal slips and directed the Sub Registrar to register the sale deeds.

4. The brother of the writ petitioner was arrayed as sixth respondent and one Padmapriya was arrayed as seventh respondent in the writ petition. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the Sub Registrar, Manapparai has registered the sale deeds in respect of the four plots.

5. At this juncture, the appellant herein has come before this Court by way of this third party writ appeal after obtaining necessary leave from this Court, against the common order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.18677 of 2025.

6. According to the appellant, insofar as Plot No.34 is concerned, which is the subject matter of W.P.(MD) No.18677 of 2025, the seventh respondent herein sold the property to her on 07.04.2021. The said sale deed was duly registered. Her vendor, the seventh respondent got the property through a Will executed by John Durairaj. Without impleading the appellant as a necessary party, in whose name Plot No.34 stands, the above writ petition was filed and the order has been obtained behind her back. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be set aside and the registration of the document by obtaining order from the Court by fraudulent means to be declared as null and void.

7. Learned counsel for the third party appellant submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside for suppression of facts and improper application of the provisions of law. The learned Single Judge, though had found that there