IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.04.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

W.P.No.7497 of 2019

T.S.Jayajothi

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The District Registrar,

Coimbatore District.

2. The Sub Registrar,

Sub Registrar Office,

Sulur,

Coimbatore District.

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to

call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by

the 2^nd respondent in May.Ku.No.390/2018 dated 14.12.2018 and

quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to

register the decree dated 03.03.2018 made in O.S.No.53 of 2018

on the file of the 5^th Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar

For Respondents: Mr.P.P.Purushothaman,

Govt.Advocate for R1 and R2

O R D E R

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the 2^nd

respondent dated 14.12.2018, wherein and whereby, the 2^nd

respondent refused to register the decree dated 03.03.2018 made

in O.S.No.53 of 2018 on the file of 5^th Additional District

Court, stating that the documents presented by him cannot be

registered as the said property was the subject matter of

attachment in a Court proceedings.

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

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd

respondents.

3. The issue as to whether the 2^nd respondent is entitled to

refuse registration of the document presented by the petitioner

on the ground that the subject matter property is under Court

attachment, is no more res integra, in view of the several

orders passed by this Court in similar issue deciding against

the Registration Department. One such recent order was passed by

this Court in W.P.No.1094/2019 dated 26.03.2019, wherein it is

observed as follows:

“8. The above issue involved in this case is no

more res integra in view of the fact that the very

same issue was already considered by this Court and

decided against the registering authority in a

decision made in W.P.No.10647/2007 dated 13.10.2018.

In fact, this Court, while passing the said order,

followed the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.2632/2012

dated 13.03.2013, which in turn, followed the decision

of the Apex Court reported in 1985 (2) SCC 167

(Balkrishan Gupta v. Swadeshi Polytex Limited).

Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the said order reads as

follows:

7. The point for consideration in

this writ petition is whether the respondent

is entitled to refuse registration of the sale

deed on the ground that the subject matter

properties of the sale deed are under Court

attachment.

The very same issue was

considered by this Court in W.P.No.36079 of

2015 reported in 2016 (3) CTC 493 (S.Praveen

Bohra vs. Joint-I Sub-Registrar) and the

learned Judge found that the order of

attachment cannot be a bar to register the

document. In order to arrive at such

conclusion, the learned Judge relied on

several decisions of this Court as well as

Apex Court. At paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the

said decision, the learned Judge has observed

as follows:

6. It is relevant to refer to the

unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of

Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No. 2635 of

2012, dated 13.03.2013, in the case of

K.D.P. Properties Private Limited v. The

Sub-Registrar, relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, wherein, in

paragraph No. 18, a reference was made to

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

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

reported in (1985) 2 SCC 167, Balkrishan

Gupta v. Swadeshi Polytex Limited, and it

was held as follows:

“18. In (1985) 2 SCC 167 (supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under:

“30. The consequence of attachment

of