BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 12.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P(MD)No.1154 of 2023 B.Moorthy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Sub Registrar Kayathar, Tuticorin.

2.Anthony Raj

3.S.Muthiah (R3 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 23.01.2023 in W.P(MD)No.1154 of 2023 ...Respondents Writ Petitions are 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 of the 1^st respondent in RFL/Kayathar/1/2023 dated 05.01.2023 and consequently, direct the respondent to register and release the document within the time fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :M/s.H.Arumugam For R1 :Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader For R2 :Mr.V.S.Kishore Kumar For R3 :Mr.K.Gurunathan

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 05.01.2023.

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the factual background in which the writ petition arises is that the property comprised in survey No.18A/2B measuring an extent of acre 1.50 cents comprised in Patta No.488, Kayathar Taluk, Thoothukudi District, originally belong to one Muthiah Pillai. It is claimed that the said Muthiah Pillai had a wife by name Lakshmi Ammal. He also had a relationship with one Chellammal alias Antonyammal. Out of the said relationship, he had a son by name Chelliah Pillai, who died intestate leaving behind his son Mariaprakasam. The said Maria Prakasam in turn died on 12.12.1991 leaving behind one Anthonyraj and his wife, Anjala. While so, the said Anjala and Anthonyraj executed a sale deed in favor of the petitioner Moorthy and the same was registered as Document No.3314/ 2020. Thereafter, the third respondent in the present writ petition viz., Muthaiya filed a petition before the registering authorities claiming that the document is a fraudulent document. An inquiry was conducted by the registering authority and by order dated 12.09.2022, the District registrar cancelled the registration of the said document and ordered that an endorsement be maintained that the document is a fraudulent document. The District Registrar went into the claim of the third respondent that the property in question originally belonged to Muthiah Pillai. However, after his death, his wife Lakshmi Ammal executed a settlement deed in favor of Meenakshi Nathan Pillai, who is the brother's son of the said Muthaiah Pillai. The petitioner being the son of the said Meenakshi Nathan Pillai has inherited the property from Meenakshi Nathan Pillai and therefore, the petitioner had only title in respect of the property.

3.The District Registrar, after considering the case of both sides held that the question with reference to the title of the third respondent can only be resolved in the civil Court. However, the District Registrar found that the document is presented by placing reliance on a death certificate as well as the legal heirship certificate of the said Chelliah Pillai and as such held that when the document is presented on the strength of such forged document, it should be treated as a fraudulent document and accordingly an entry was ordered to be made. This petitioner, being the purchaser, challenged the said order by way of W.P(MD)No.27998 of 2022 by judgment dated 23.01.2023, this Court upheld the said the order. However, granted relief to the petitioner only with reference to the criminal case, holding that since he claims to be a bona fide purchaser for value upon him cooperating for the investigation he need not be added as an accused.

4.The wife of Maria Prakasam, namely Anjala also died and the son of Maria Prakasam is Antonyraj alone was alive. It is the case of the petitioner that even during the said proceedings, they had approached the appropriate local authority and obtained the correct death certificate and his vendor was in possession