SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
S.Murugan – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar, Sivaganga District – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Lakshmi Prasanna
For the Respondents: Mr.F.Deepak, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2

Mere pendency of suit not registrable as encumbrance; seek civil court interim relief.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing registration authorities to note pendency of suit O.S.No.85 of 2025 in the encumbrance certificate for the property. Facts reveal petitioner claims ownership amid pending litigation fearing third-party interests. Court found mere suit pendency does not qualify as encumbrance even if Sub Registrar is a defendant. Issue framed as whether Sub Registrar must register suit pendency in encumbrance certificate. Ratio decidendi holds pendency alone insufficient for encumbrance notation; petitioner directed to seek interim relief from civil court, enforceable upon Sub Registrar. Writ petition disposed of without costs, liberty granted to pursue interim application in pending suit.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks notation of suit pendency in encumbrance certificate. (Para 1 , 2)
2. suit pendency not encumbrance; seek civil interim relief. (Para 3)
3. writ dismissed with liberty for interim application. (Para 4)

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for considering the representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2026 and to make necessary entries in the encumbrance certificate indicating the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Manamadurai.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the property and when the suit is pending, the respondents 3 and 4 are now trying to create third party interest and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

3.I heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf the respondents 1 and 2. It is already held by this Court that mere pendency of a suit cannot be a matter that can be considered by the Sub Registrar even in cases, where the Sub Registrar is also made as a defendant in the suit. Therefore, pendency of a suit by itself cannot be registered as an encumbrance in respect of the property. If the petitioner has an apprehension that third party rights will be created and prejudice will be caused to him, it will be open for the petitioner to file an appropriate interim application in the very same suit that is pending and as and when, any Civil Court's order is obtained in favour of the petitioner, the same can be presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, which will be considered and obeyed with in accordance with the directions that are contained in the interim order passed by the Civil Court.

4.Keeping the said liberty open, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be countenanced and as such, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top