1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P(MD)No.9814 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 M.Vellimalai ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary to Government, Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai. 3. Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 4. A.Stephen ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition is 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 of the third respondent made in proceeding No.435/2010 dated 23.12.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to receive any document presented for registration pertaining to the land in Sr.No.544/1A2 in Sirumalai Village, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate For R – 4 : Mr.T.Selvam O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition, challenging an order passed by the third respondent refusing to register a document presented for registration. 2. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to 3 and Mr.T.Selvam, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. The petitioner who claims to be an agreement holder, approached the third respondent for finding out the value of the stamp papers to be purchased for executing a sale deed in respect of a land in Survey No.544/1A2 in Sirumalai Village. In response, the third respondent issued the impugned communication informing the petitioner that in 2 suits O.S.Nos.38 and 309 of 2003 filed by the fourth respondent on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul a decree had already been passed and that in a subsequent suit, O.S.No.707 of 2010, the Court had granted an order of status quo for the registration of any document relating to the lands in Sirumalai Village. Shocked by the said communication, the petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition. 4. The Official respondents have filed a counter stating that they were made parties to O.S.No.309 of 2003 and 38 of 2003 and that since they have suffered decree, they have not been in a position to register the property. On the basis of the decree passed in the above two suits, the fourth respondent has also obtained a status quo order in I.A.No.804 of 2010 in O.S.No.707 of 2010. Therefore, the third respondent feels bound by the orders of the civil Court. 5. It is no doubt true that the order of the civil Court is binding on the third respondent. Therefore, I do not find fault with the third respondent for refusing to register the property. But the fact remains that the decree obtained by the fourth respondent in the two suits indicated above are really shocking. O.S.No.38 of 2003 was filed by the fourth respondent herein along with four persons impleading (1) the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (2) the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Commissioner of Land Administration (3) the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department (4) the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (5) the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Dindigul (6) the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Forest Officer, Dindigul and four other persons. The prayer in O.S.No.38 of 2003 was for a declaration of title and for a permanent injunction. 6. The fourth respondent also filed another suit in O.S.No.309 of 2003 on the file of the same Court namely, the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul, impleading only the officials of the State as defendants 1 to 6, seeking a declaration of title and for permanent injunction. 7. Both the suits were taken up for joint trial and after the private defendants remained ex-parte, the suit was decreed by a common judgment, dated 15.03.2010. 8. Though the Government appears to have filed a regular first appeal, they have done so along with an application for condonation of delay and it is pending. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. In the mean time the fourth respondent also filed a fresh suit in O.S.No.707 of 2010 on the basis of the decree passed in the first two suits. Pending the suit the fourth respondent also sought an interim order of injunction restraining the Sub-Registrar from registering any document in respect of the properties in question. On this application I.A.No.804 of 2010 an interim order to maintain status quo has been passed. Therefore, primarily the third respondent felt his hands tied. 10. But what is surprising is that the properties covered by the first set of two suits and the third suit measure about 29,000 hectares of land in the entire Sirumalai area. I do not know how a decree of declaration of title came to be passed in favour of a single individual and his family members, in respect of about 29,000 hectares of land, in suits filed in a Munsif Court. Dumb founded by the extent of land covered by the suits filed by the fourth respondent, I am not extracting the description of property contained in the schedule to both the suits since they may consume about 15 pages. 11. A perusal of the judgment dated 15.03.2010 passed in both the suits would show that the fourth respondent and his family members have claimed to be the owners of the total extent of about 29,000 hectares. The Principal District Munsif did not apply his mind as to how such a prayer could be considered. The suit was valued at Rs.15,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.1,125.50p had been paid. The Government unfortunately took its own time to file an appeal and the condone delay petition is still pending. In such circumstances, public interest cannot be allowed to suffer by such a wholly unsustainable decree. Therefore, in my view, the best course of action to be taken is to keep the decrees of the trial Court in suspension and to permit the petitioner to file necessary applications to set aside the decrees in both the suits. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-  (a) the petitioner is permitted to file appropriate applications before the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul for setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 15.03.2010 passed in O.S.Nos.38 and 309 of 2003 and for impleading himself as party to those suits. The petitioner is certainly a necessary and proper party, in view of the defects pointed by me in the decree passed by the trial Court;  (b) the petitioner is also permitted to file an application for impleading himself as a party to O.S.No.707 of 2010 and an application for vacating the status quo order granted in I.A.No.804 of 2010;  (c) upon the petitioner filing the applications as indicated above, the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul shall take https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 up the same, issue notice to the respondents and dispose of them in accordance with law within a period of two months;  (d) till the disposal of the applications filed by the petitioner, the decree passed in O.S.No.38 of 2003 and 309 of 2003 and the interim order of status quo granted in I.A.No.804 of 2010 in O.S.No.707 of 2010 shall be kept suspended;  (e) the Sub-Registrar is at liberty to register any document presented for registration, subject however to the parties complying with the provisions of the Stamp Act, the Rules and any circular issued by the Government or the Head of the Department. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government, Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai. 3. The Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 4. The Principal District Munsif, Dindigul. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.42896) +1 CC to Mr.T.Selvam, Advocate (SR.No.42940) W.P(MD)No.9814 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 07.12.2011 ps NSV/16.12.11/4P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/