The Sub-Registrar's refusal to register documents based on third-party objections is invalid unless substantial evidence is provided, emphasizing the executive nature of their role under the Registration Act.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records of the impugned refusal memo dated 02.09.2025 in Refusal No. RFL/ Pappireddipatti/ 9/ 2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed of the petitioner dated 25.08.2025 for its registration.

2.Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner presented a sale deed for the purpose of registration before the respondents. However, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same by virtue of the impugned refusal memo dated 02.09.2025, on the ground that the 3rd party one Ponmalai Senthil made an objection stating that there was an unregistered sale agreement executed between the petitioner and the said Ponmalai Senthil for the very same property. Since no sale was executed by the petitioner, a criminal complaint was also registered against the petitioner before the Pappireddipatti Police. He would further submit that no such agreement was entered between the petitioner and one Ponmalai Senthil. The petitioner has only received a hand loan of Rs.20,000/- from him and there is no idea ti sell the property to the said Ponmalai Senthil.

4.Learned Special Government pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that since there was an objection from the 3rd party, the respondents could not register the sale deed.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.

6.Taking note of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the issue in the present case has already been well settled by this Court in W.P.No.11056 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024.

7.For better appreciation, it would be opposite to extract the relevant portion of the aforesaid order, which reads as follows:-

“8. It is relevant to note that the powers of the Sub Registrar is governed by the provisions of the Registration Act. Therefore, he has to perform the duty strictly in terms of the power conferred by the Registration Act.

9. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules set out various circumstances under which the Registrar may refuse to register the document. Rule 162 of the Registration Rules reads as follows:

"162. When registration is refused the reasons for refusal shall be at once recorded in Book 2. They will usually come under one or more of the heads mentioned below---

I. Section 19.---That the document is written in a language which the Registering Officer does not understand and which is not commonly used in the District, and that it is unaccompanied by a true translation and a true copy.

II. Section 20 .---That it contains unattested interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations which in the opinion of the Registering Officer require to be attested.

III. Section 21 .---(1) to (3) and Section 22 .-- That the description of the property is insufficient to identify it or does not contain the information required by Rule 18.

IV. Section 21 (4).---That the document is unaccompanied by a copy or copies of any map or plan which it contains.

V. Rule 32.---That the date of execution is not stated in the document or that the correct date is not ascertainable.

VI. Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 72, 75 and 77.---That it is presented after the prescribed time.

VII. Sections 32, 33, 40 and 43.---That it is presented by a pers