The statutory bar under Section 22-B (3) of the Registration Act prevents property registration under attachment, regardless of ownership claims.

Order

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the refusal check slip issued by second respondent dated 17.10.2025 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the second respondent to register the petitioner's document of settlement deed dated 17.10.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, by name Suseela, is the absolute owner of the property situated at Sundakkapalayam Village, Uttukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District; that the petitioner wants to settle the aforesaid property in favour of her son Dinesh, and accordingly, she presented the settlement deed before the second respondent for registration, but, the same was refused and returned by the second respondent vide Refusal Check Slip dated 17.10.2025 by citing the reason that there was an order of attachment in respect of the property covered in the deed and challenging such refusal, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

2.1 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a suit for money was filed by one Karthick against the petitioner and the same was decreed on 19.06.2023, however during the pendency of the suit, an Application in I.A.No.918 of 2019 was filed by the said Karthick, wherein, attachment order was passed on 29.01.2020; that though the said attachment is yet to be raised, however, a mere attachment cannot be a bar to register the document; that the sale or alienation of the property, pending the order of attachment is void only against the decree-holder in respect of the claims enforceable under the order of attachment and not in respect of other claims; that in support of such contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishna Gupta Vs. Swadeshi Polytext Ltd reported in (1985) 2 SCC 167; that apart from the said decision, the learned counsel also relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P.No.10021 of 2022, dated 22.04.2022, wherein, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balakrishna Gupta's case was referred to and held that the order of attachment passed by the Civil Court cannot be a ground to refuse registration of the document. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order and prays for appropriate direction for registration of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner dated

17.10.2025.

3. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents justified the order of refusal made by the second respondent, Sub-Registrar by drawing the attention of this Court to Section 22-B (3) of the Registration Act (second amendment Act of 2021) and submitted that in terms of the said provision, the respondent-Registering Authority has an obligation to go through the deed, which is presented for registration and in the event, the Registering Authority came to know that the Executant is intending to fraudulently execute such deed and also finds that the property covered in such deed is under attachment or related to prohibited transaction, the Registering Authority must refuse to register the such document. Therefore, it is contended that, in terms of Section 22-B (3) there is a statutory bar, which prevents the Registering Authority from registering any document of such kind and in the present case, the document, which is sought to be registered is in respect of a property under attachment, and hence, the second respondent has refused to the register the document presented by the petitioner; that though the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Balakrishna Gupta's case (cited supra), the said judgement is of no avail to the petitioner, unless and until, the Section 22-B provision is challenged/repeal