BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN C.M.P.(MD) No.17585 of 2025 in W.A.(MD) SR No.90792 of 2025 and W.A.(MD) SR No.90792 of 2025

1.Muthu Pandi

2.Arumugasami ... Petitioners -vs-

1.Velusamy

2.The District Registrar Tenkasi District Tenkasi

3.The Sub Registrar Puliyangudi Sub Registrar Office Tenkasi District ... Respondents PRAYER (in C.M.P.(MD) No.17585 of 2025): Petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant leave to the petitioners to file a writ appeal as against the order passed by this Court, dated 19.08.2024 in W.P.

(MD) No.17550 of 2019.

PRAYER (in W.A.(MD) SR No.90792 of 2025): Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court, dated For Petitioners : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R2 & R3

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

The petitioners herein being aggrieved by the order, dated

19.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.17550 of 2019 behind their back, are before this Court seeking leave of this Court to prefer a writ appeal challenging the said order as third parties.

2. The operative portion of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:

“5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the sale deed could not be registered because the vendor did not cooperate and sign the document. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent stands quashed and the first respondent shall conduct an enquiry by following the procedure as contemplated under Sections 74 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, by issuing summons and enforce the attendance of the witnesses and thereafter, pass an order as per Sections 74 and 75 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

3. From the above order, it is clear that when a sale deed presented for registration without the vendor's presence, the Sub Registrar has returned the document. Challenging the same, a writ of certiorarified mandamus was filed by the first respondent herein and in the said writ petition, the above order has been passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. The petitioners herein, who are the owners of the property, claim that the sale consideration was not fully passed on to them and therefore, they have not cooperated for registration of the sale deed. Surprising the reply notice sent to the writ petitioner, the writ petition was filed and the learned Single Judge has passed the order as stated above. Hence, it is appropriate for the petitioners / proposed appellants herein to prefer a writ appeal by obtaining leave of this Court.

5. This Court, after going through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the affidavit filed by the petitioners herein in support of this civil miscellaneous petition, finds that enforcement of agreement for sale has been given a colour of improper exercise of power by the registering authority by issuing a refusal slip dated 26.07.2019. The learned Single Judge, after considering these facts and also obviously aware of the fact that either the power agent with whom the writ petitioner has entered into an agreement nor the owners of the property are parties to the writ writ petition, has consciously pointed out that the issuance of the check slip is not appropriate and therefore, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the District Register, dated 26.07.2019 and at the same time, directed the District Registrar / second respondent herein to conduct an enquiry by following the procedures as contemplated under Section 74 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, by issuing summons and to enforce the attendance of the witnesses and thereafter, pass an order as per Sections 74 and 75 of the Indian Registration Act,