Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Raja vs the Sub Registrar

RAJA vs The Sub Registrar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 30, 2025
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1821712

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/9888/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

RAJA

Respondent

The Sub Registrar

Excerpt

.....of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the refusal check slip dated rfl/mecheri/35/2024 27.12.2024 issued by the st st 1 respondent and quash the same, subsequently direct the 1 respondent to entertain and register the pathway rights agreement dated 27.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner for registration. for petitioner : mr.c.deepak kumar for 1st respondent : mr.p.harish government advocateorderthis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip st dated 27.12.2024 issued by the 1 respondent and to entertain and register the nd pathway rights dated 27.12.2024 executed by the 2 respondent in favour of the petitioner.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned governmentst advocate appearing for the 1 respondent. though the names of the respondents 3 and 4 has been printed in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf either in person or through counsel. st3. the refusal check slip has been issued by the 1 respondent mainly on the nd ground that apart from the 2 respondent, the respondents 3 and 4 also have right over the pathway and that they have not signed the agreement. nd4. in the considered view of this court, the 2 respondent can only pass on the rights which he possess and he cannot take away the rights of the respondents 3 and 4 over the pathway. st5. with this clarification, there shall be a direction to the 1 respondent toregister the agreement, if it is otherwise in order. it is reiterated that the registration of the agreement will not in any way take away the rights of the respondents 3 and 4. this writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. no costs. 30.04.2025 gya to the sub registrar mecheri sub registrar office salem districtn. anand venkatesh, j.gya 30.04.2025

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Raja .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Sub Registrar Mecheri Sub Registrar Office Salem District 2.Senthil Kumar 3.Kandasamy 4.Palanisamy .. Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the refusal check slip dated RFL/Mecheri/35/2024 27.12.2024 issued by the st st 1 respondent and quash the same, subsequently direct the 1 respondent to entertain and register the pathway rights agreement dated 27.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner for registration. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepak Kumar For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip st dated 27.12.2024 issued by the 1 respondent and to entertain and register the nd pathway rights dated 27.12.2024 executed by the 2 respondent in favour of the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government

st Advocate appearing for the 1 respondent. Though the names of the respondents 3 and 4 has been printed in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf either in person or through counsel. st

3. The refusal check slip has been issued by the 1 respondent mainly on the nd ground that apart from the 2 respondent, the respondents 3 and 4 also have right over the pathway and that they have not signed the agreement. nd

4. In the considered view of this Court, the 2 respondent can only pass on the rights which he possess and he cannot take away the rights of the respondents 3 and 4 over the pathway. st

5. With this clarification, there shall be a direction to the 1 respondent to

register the agreement, if it is otherwise in order. It is reiterated that the registration of the agreement will not in any way take away the rights of the respondents 3 and 4. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. 30.04.2025 gya To The Sub Registrar Mecheri Sub Registrar Office Salem District

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

gya 30.04.2025

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties RAJA vs The Sub Registrar Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales