Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Anitha – Appellant
Versus
Axelin Thiraviyam – Respondent
W.A.(MD)No.3205 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.M.Madasamy
For the Respondents: K.Kevin Karan, S.R.A.Ramachandran, K.S.Selva Ganesan
The High Court under Article 226 cannot direct registration of a sale deed when a title dispute exists and the property is already registered in another’s name; such an order obtained by suppression of facts is non est.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226; Letters Patent - Clause 15.
(B) Registration of Documents - Duty of Sub Registrar - The Sub Registrar or District Registrar cannot act as a civil Court and cannot adjudicate disputes relating to title. (Para 3)
(C) Property Law - Double Entry - The concept of double entry for the same property is unknown to law; a direction to register a subsequent sale deed for property already registered in another’s name is illegal. (Paras 10, 16)
(D) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Restraint - The High Court under Article 226 should show judicial restraint and not interfere in pure title disputes; the Court cannot approve fraudulent acts and an order obtained by suppression of facts and without impleading necessary parties is non est in law. (Paras 11, 12, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner claimed title to certain plots under a Will executed by his grandfather. He presented four sale deeds for registration, which the Sub Registrar refused on the ground of a pending civil dispute. The writ petitioner filed writ petitions seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the refusal slips and compel registration. The learned Single Judge, holding that double entry is permissible and that the Registrar cannot adjudicate title, quashed the refusal slips and directed registration. A third party, who had allegedly purchased one of the plots (Plot No.37) under a registered sale deed in 2021, appealed after obtaining leave, contending that the order was passed without impleading her and that she was the actual owner. The writ petitioner did not disclose the prior registered sale deed in favour of the third party.
Findings of Court:
The order of the learned Single Judge was passed without proper application of mind and law, ignoring the fact that the property already stood registered in the name of a third party. The direction to register a subsequent sale deed for the same property, resulting in double entry, is illegal. The writ petitioner suppressed material facts and did not implead necessary parties. The order is non est in law and liable to be set aside.
Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing registration of sale deeds when there was a subsisting title dispute and when the property stood registered in the name of a third party; whether such an order, obtained by suppression of facts and without impleading necessary parties, can be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court under Article 226 must exercise judicial restraint and not adjudicate title disputes. A direction to register a document when there is an apparent title dispute and when the property is already registered in another’s name is illegal. An order obtained by fraud, suppression of facts, and without necessary parties is void and cannot be allowed to stand. The concept of double entry is not recognized in law. Result : Appeal allowed; the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2025 is set aside; parties are directed to work out their remedy before the civil Court. No costs.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
When there is a property dispute between the writ petitioner, namely, Axelin Thiraviyam/ R1 and his brother Daniel Albert 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. 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 orders, 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, having held that double entry for the same property is permissible under law; the Sub Registrar or the District Registrar cannot act as 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 second respondent 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. 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 four 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 passed by the learned Singe Judge in W.P.(MD)No. 18679 of 2025.
6.According to him, insofar as Plot No.37 is concerned, which is the subject matter of W.P.(MD)No.18679 of 2025, the seventh respondent herein sold the property to him on 26.07.2021. The said sale deed was duly registered. His 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.37 stands, the above writ petition was filed and the order has been obtained behind his 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.The 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 is a civil dispute between the parties and the property had already been registered in the name of third parties and the vendor, who is the seventh respondent herein, is no more the title holder, had observed that the issue of double entry is permissible and the District Registrar cannot act as a civil Court and adjudicate the dispute relating to title.
8.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who is the first respondent in this writ appeal, would submit that under the Will of Durairaj, the writ petitioner and his brother Daniel Albert, who is the vendor of the present appellant, got equal share and the writ petitioner was allotted Plot Nos.33 to 39 and 49 and the seventh respondent was allotted to other plots. Based on the mutation of the revenue records, the writ petitioner had been the absolute owner of the subject property and is entitled to sell the property. Since the Sub Registrar refused to register the document, he approached th
