W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD).No.3099 of 2025 P.S.Allah Pitchai ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome Main Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandhavelipakam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai. 2.The Sub Registrar, Perungalur, Pudukottai. 3.N.Jeinubugani 4.N.Jerina Begam 5.N.Jeenaitha Begam 6.N.Mohammed Sadiq 7.N.Mujibur Rahman 8.N.Rameeja Begam ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 respondent in Na.Ka.No.11/2025 dated 24.01.2025 and quash the same and further directing the second respondent not to entertain any registration with respect to the property in Sy.No.120/2, Perungalur Village, Pudukottai Taluk and Pudukottai District. For Petitioner :Ms.M.Sowmiya for R.Balakrishnan For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Sureshkumar Additional Government Pleader For R3 to R8 : Ms.A.Banumathi ***** O R D E R The Admitted case of the petitioner is that a mortgage had been executed by one Noorulhaleem in favour of the petitioner's father one Syed Mohammed. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs.3,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The petitioner claims that his father passed away on 15.05.2010 and Noorulhaleem passed away on 04.10.2016. The petitioner claims that before him, his father was in possession of the property and therefore, he has presented a suit in O.S.No.1 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Pudukottai. The relief in the suit is as follows: 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 “MfNt khz;GkpF Nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fs; jaT nra;J jhth nrhj;J Fwpj;J gpujpthjpfs; rl;l fhyj;jpw;Fs; kPl;f jtwpajhYk;> jhth nrhj;J njhlh;e;J gy Mz;Lfshf thjpapd; mDgtj;jpy; ,Ug;gjhYk; jhth nrhj;J thjpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd chpik tpsk;gy; ghpfhuk; toq;fpAk;> mjd; tpisT ghpfhukhf thjp gy Mz;Lfshf jhth nrhj;jpy; mDgtj;jpYk;> RthjPdj;jpYk; ,Ug;gij gpujpthjpfs; vt;tifapYk; jLf;ff;$lhJ vd epue;ju jilahiz ghpfhuk; toq;fpAk;. ,t;tof;fpd; nryTj;njhif thjpf;F gpujpthjpfsplkpUe;J fpilf;Fk;gbAk; NkYk; r%fk; Nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fs; crpjnkd fUJk; gpwghpfhuq;fs; toq;fpAk; jPh;g;G kw;Wk; jPh;g;ghiz gpwg;gpf;f Ntz;Lkha; gzpTld; gpuhh;j;jpf;fg;gLfpwJ.” 2. As the petitioner came to know that the respondents 3 to 8 are attempting to deal with the property, by registering a sale deed in favour of a third party, he gave his objections to the Sub-Registrar, Perungalur, Pudukottai District, requiring him to record his objection. The Sub Registrar refused the same by way of the impugned proceedings. Hence, this writ petition. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 3. I have heard Ms.M.Sowmiya representing for Mr.R.Balakrishnan for the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.A.Banumathi, learned counsel, who takes notice for the respondents 3 to 8. I have gone through the records. 4. The best case of the petitioner is that he is the legal representative of a mortgagee. The respondents 3 to 8 are the legal representatives of the mortgagor. By virtue of creating a mortgage, the mortgagor does not lose the right to alienate the property in favour of a third party. Such alienation would be subject to the mortgage. The affidavit discloses that the original mortgagee (i.e.,) the father of the petitioner, Mr.Syed Mohammed, had presented a suit in O.S.No.205 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, for recovery of money. The said suit also came to be dismissed on 29.07.1982. 5. Whether the mortgage survives after the dismissal of the suit 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 filed by the original mortgagee or not is, a matter to be probed into by the civil Court in O.S.No.1 of 2025. The Sub Registrar /second respondent is not a quasi judicial authority to decide on the inter se right between the mortgagor and mortgagee or if there is a right of prescriptive title in favour of the petitioner or loss of title for the respondents 3 to 8 by virtue of adverse possession. These pleas are entirely beyond the scope of the power of both the first and second respondents. That being the position, the order passed by the second respondent cannot be found fault with. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Index :Yes / No 19.02.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Rmk To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome Main Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandhavelipakam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai. 2.The Sub Registrar, Perungalur, Pudukottai. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. Rmk W.P.(MD)No.4321 of 2025 19.02.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis