W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Writ Petition(MD)No.3225 of 2025 S.Suriyanarayanan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Registrar, Registrar Office Campus, St. Marks Street, Sankar Colony, Palayankkottai, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Sub Registrar, The Pettai Sub Registrar Office, Tirunelveli. 3. Sabara Banu, (R3 is Impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 20.2.2025 in WMP(MD).2440/25) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to delete the entry made in Encumbrance Certificate in Serial No.5 of subject to the Document No.2031/2008 dated 07.05.2008 pertaining to the house property situated at Survey No.TS992 at New Door No.188, Ward No.1, Block No.6, Vinai Theertha 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 Vinayagar Kovil Street, Pettai, Tirunelveli District on the base of the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2024 within a stipulated time of period fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For Respondents : Mr.R. Suresh Kumar, Addl. Govt. Prosecutor (for R1 and R2) No appearance (for R3) ORDER The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to delete the entry made in the Encumbrance Certificate in Serial No.5 of Document No.2031/2008 dated 07.05.2008, pertaining to the house property comprised in Survey No.T.S.No.992 at New Door No.188, Ward No.1, Block No.6, Vinai Theertha Vinayagar Kovil Street, Pettai, Tirunelveli District. 2. The above mentioned property was the subject matter of a partition suit in O.S.No.49 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli. The said proceedings was initiated by the following persons: 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 (1) Esakkiammal (2) Janakiraman (3) Thangam against (1) Sankaravadivammal (2) Murugesh (3) Sankar (4) Sanmugam Pillai (5) Surya Narayanan The relief sought for in the suit was for partition and separate possession. The only contesting respondent in the suit was one Sankar. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, decreed the suit on 13.06.2011. He passed the following decree: “1. jhth nrhj;jpy; thjpfs; jyh 1/18 gq;F (3/18 gq;F) ghfk; gphp;j;Jf; nfhs;tjw;F jPh;g;ghiz toq;fg;gLfpwJ. 2. 5Mk; vjph;thjp 5/9 gq;F (10/18 gq;F) ghfk; gphpj;Jf;nfhs;tjw;F jPh;g;ghiz toq;fg;gLfpwJ. 3. tpUg;gKs;s jug;gpdh;fs; Mizah; epakdk; nra;J nrhj;jpid gphptpid nra;Jnfhs;s ,Wjpepiy jPh;g;ghizf;F kD jhf;fy; nra;a tof;fhdJ fhytiuaiwapd;wp xj;jp itf;fg;gLfpwJ. 4. tof;fpw;fhd mtuth; nryTj;njhifia mtuth;fNs Vw;Wf;nfhs;s Ntz;Lk;.” 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 3. The third defendant Sankar, being aggrieved over the judgment and decree, preferred an appeal to the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S.No.78 of 2012. The learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal on 17.06.2016. 4. It is the plea of the counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition that no further appeal had been preferred against the judgment and decree, and therefore, it has become final. Earlier to this proceedings, the third defendant had alienated the property by way of a registered sale deed in favour of his wife, Sabara Banu. This was by way of a registered document in Doc. No.2031/2008 dated 07.05.2008. 5. The petitioner herein had purchased the aforesaid property from all the plaintiffs and the defendants Mr.Sankar. He took the final decree application along with the plaintiffs in I.A.No.64/2012. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, and ordered the final decree. In the final decree, the following order was passed: “1) that the Petition is hereby allowed and final 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 decree is passed in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. 2) that the petitioner is allotted entire suit schedule property which was demarcated as brown washed portion in the Commissioner's plan to the share of the 4th petitioner/5th defendant. 3) that the property allotted above shall vest in the 4th petitioner for and in full satisfaction of his 14/18 share. 4) that the 4th petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,08,333/- within two months from today, being the ovalty amount arrived at by the Commissioner which shall be paid to the 3rd respondent/3rd defendant towards his 4/18 share. 5) that the report of the Commissioner and plan filed by the Commissioner do form part of the final decree and be appended.” 6. Subsequently, the petitioner also registered the final decree with the second respondent on 07.09.2023 in Doc. No.4022/2023. When he filed an application for Encumbrance Certificate for the aforesaid property, it continued to reflect the sale made by the third respondent in favour of his wife Sabara Banu. Hence, he gave a representation on 17.11.2024 to the second respondent to delete any reference to the sale. As there was no tangible action at the hands of the second respondent, he has come forward with the present writ 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 petition. 7. When the matter came up for admission, I noticed that Mrs.Sabara Banu has not been made as a party to the writ petition. Therefore, I suo motu impleaded her as the third respondent to the writ petition and issued notice to her. 8. At the time of admission, Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, took notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 9. I heard Mr.K.Gokul for the petitioner, and Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 and 2. Though notice has been served on the third respondent, none appears for her. 10. Mr.K.Gokul, after narrating the facts of the case, pleads that on account of the entry in the Encumbrance Certificate of the sale made by the third defendant in favour of his wife, there is a cloud over the petitioner's title, and hence, he has come forward with the present writ petition, seeking deletion of the said entry. 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 11.Per contra, Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, states that there is no provision under the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder to delete an entry that has already been entered in the Register. 12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of both sides, and I have gone through the records. 13. The alienation by the third defendant in the suit in favour of the third respondent herein was for the entire extent of the property in the aforesaid survey number. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2010 came to be presented as stated above. A preliminary decree was passed, and in appeal, it has been confirmed. In the final decree, the entire property has been allotted to the writ petitioner and his vendors. This shows that the decree of the court has vested the property with the writ petitioner. On the strength of the final decree, the petitioner has also initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.87 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, and the writ petitioner has also taken possession of the property. This shows that not only the court has declared the share of the petitioner's vendor, but it has also allotted this share to the petitioner's vendor and 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 thereby, to the petitioner himself and has also effected delivery of the property and handed over the possession to the petitioner. 14. That being the situation, the presence of the sale deed executed much prior to the decree of the civil court would not in any way affect the right of the petitioner, who has obtained the property by resorting to proper legal proceedings. Hence, the fear of Mr.K.Gokul that the petitioner has no title to the property is unfounded. The existence of the prior encumbrance stands nullified by virtue of the sale deed made by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the writ petitioner and also by the registration of the judgment and decree on 07.09.2023. The document is of the year 2008 and the final decree has been registered in the year 2023. Therefore, the fear of the petitioner that there might be some cloud on the title on account of the 2008 sale deed is a misapprehension. 15. I agree with the submission of Mr.R.Sureshkumar that there is no provision of law to enable the respondents 1 and 2 to delete the entry already made. Therefore, the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. 16. With the observations set forth above, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 26.03.2025 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To 1.The District Registrar, Registrar Office Campus, St. Marks Street, Sankar Colony, Palayankkottai, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Sub Registrar, The Pettai Sub Registrar Office, Tirunelveli. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3225 of 2025 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. skn Writ Petition(MD)No.3225 of 2025 26.03.2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis