High Court · 2025

WP No. 14700 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 14700 of 2025M.Jagannathan,S/o Maruthamuthu, No.110, North Street, Kandiratheertham Village,Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.Petitioner(s)Vs1.The District Registrar Of Registration (Admin),Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.2.The Sub-Registrar of Registration,Pulampadi And Post Ariyalur District.Respondent(s)PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the refusal check slip in RFL /Pullambadi /54/2025 dated 02.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14700 of 2025direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed relating to land in SF.No 356/24 of measuring an extent of 94 sq.mts, Kandiratheertham Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.KamadevanFor Respondent(s): Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government PleaderORDERThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the refusal check slip in RFL /Pullambadi /54/2025 dated 02.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed relating to land in SF.No 356/24 of measuring an extent of 94 sq.mts, Kandiratheertham Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the subject property measuring to an extent of 1080 sq.ft comprised in Old S.No.113/3, New S.No.356/24, Kandiratheertham Village, Ariyalur https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14700 of 2025Taluk, Ariyalur District by virtue of the sale deed dated 28.04.1980. Thereafter, in the year 2024, the petitioner intend to sell the said property and executed a sale deed dated 05.01.2024 in favour of one M.V.Subramanian and presented the same before the 2nd respondent for registration. However, the 2nd respondent refused to register the sale deed dated 05.01.2024 and issued the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.04.2025 stating that one Narasimhan had executed a sale deed in favour of one Ramakrishnan measuring to an extent of 150 sq.ft in the same survey number in the year 2000 and the said Ramakrishnan has also filed an objection petition.3.He would further submit that though the petitioner's vendor executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 1080 sq.ft in the year 1980, when the petitioner measured the house site for the purpose of obtaining patta, it was found that the said land was only 1012 sq.ft instead of 1080 sq.ft and the patta was also granted only to an extent of 1012 sq.ft and the petitioner intend to sell the 1012 sq.ft to one M.V.Subramanian. Further, as per the Field Measurement Book, the Survey number 356/24 consists of 1.15 ares i.e 1237 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14700 of 2025sq.ft of land, out of which only 150 sq.ft has been purchased by one Ramakrishnan and the petitioner intend to sell only 1012 sq.ft. Thus, the total extent purchased by both the parties in the aforesaid survey number would only comes about 1162 sq.ft and another 75 sq.ft is available in the same survey number. If the 2nd respondent conducted enquiry, the petitioner would have explained the same by producing the relevant records. However, the 2nd respondent without conducting any enquiry had refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner. 4.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that since the sale deed has already been executed by one Narasimhan in favour of one Ramakrishnan in the same survey number and the objection petition has also been filed by one Ramakrishnan, the 2nd respondent refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner. However, he would fairly submit that the 2nd respondent would conduct enquiry and this Court may also pass an order in this regard. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14700 of 20255.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.6.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner intend to sell the house site to an extent of 1012 sq.ft comprised in survey number 356/24 Kandiratheertham Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District and executed a sale deed dated 05.01.2024 in favour of one M.V.Subramanian and presented the same for registration. However, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same citing the reason that in a same survey number already a sale deed has been executed to an extent of 150 sq.ft in favour of Ramakrishnan, who has also filed an objection petition. A perusal of Field Measurement Book filed by the petitioner in Page No.19 of the typed set of papers would show that the total extent available in survey number 356/24 is 1.15 ares i.e 1237 sq.ft., The petitioner intend to sell https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14700 of 20251012 sq.ft and the sale deed already executed in the year 2000 in respect of the same survey number is of 150 sq.ft., so the total entitlement of both parties in the survey number 356/24 is 1162 sq.ft out of 1237 sq.ft and another 75 sq.ft is also available in the said survey number. 7.When being the fact, if the 2nd respondent conducted proper enquiry in this regard, he would have found the ownership of the respective parties. However, the 2nd respondent without conducting any enquiry, in an arbitrary manner refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner, which is not proper and not in accordance with law. Thus, such refusal order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.04.2025 is set aside. While setting aside the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.04.2025, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry regarding the total extent available in 356/24 Kandiratheertham Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District and the ownership of the petitioner as well as the person who made objection, based on the records available, immediately upon the re-presentation of the sale deed dated 05.01.2024. Further, the records produced before this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14700 of 2025Court shows that the petitioner purchased an extent of 1012 sq.ft out of 1237 sq.ft available in survey number 356/24 in the year 1980. Since only 150 sq.ft has been purchased by one Ramakrishnan out of the said 1237 sq.ft in the same survey number, this Court does not find any impediment to the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner.8.With the above direction, his writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.15-10-2025rstIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1.The District Rgistrar of Registration (Admin),Ariyalur Distrct, Ariyalur.2.The Sub Registrar of Registration,Pulampadi And Post Ariyalur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 14700 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No.14700 of 2025 15-10-2025