IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Lalitha

3/48, Bharathidasan Street,

Mamalan Nagar, Kancheepuram,

Tamil Nadu-631 501. ... Petitioner

v.

1. The Inspector General of Registration

Office of the Registration Department

Pattinampakkam,

No.100, Santhome High Road,

Chennai-600 028.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Office of the Registration Department,

Pattinampakkam,

No.100, Santhome High Road,

Chennai-600 028.

3. The District Registrar,

Kancheepuram

Office of the District Registrar

Arasu nagar, Thandavaraya Nagar,

Kancheepuram, Orikkai-631 601.

4. The Joint Sub Registrar-4

Kancheepuram,

Office of the Joint Sub Registrar,

Taluk Office Compound Kancheepuram-631 501. ... Respondents PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to Refusal Slip issued by the 4^th Respondent in RFL/4 vz; ,iz rhh;gjptus; fh";rpg[uk;/_/4/2024 dated 14.05.2024 and confirmed by the 3^rd Respondent in Proceedings No. f.vz; 2258_/M1_2024/ dated 25.06.2024 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non est in law and consequently direct the 4^th Respondent to register the Sale Deed dated

01.03.2024 within a reasonable time period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vijay for M/s.Eswar, Kumar and Rao For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Spl.G.P.

ORDER

On the basis of power of attorney dated 19.02.2019 bearing document No.1208 of 2019, the agent Mr.E.Seeralan, executed a sale deed dated 14.05.2024, in favour of the petitioner. Upon presentation, the Sub Registrar declined registration under refusal check slip dated 14.05.2024. The matter was carried in appeal and the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Sub Registrar under order dated 25.06.2024. Both these orders are challenged in this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two reasons for refusal are recorded in the order of the Sub Registrar. The first reason for refusal is the information received from the principal, Lakshmanan, stating that he proposes to cancel / revoke the power of attorney. In the absence of revocation in accordance with law, learned counsel submits that the cited reason is untenable. As regards the second reason, which is proceedings dated 13.12.2021, learned counsel submits that the said proceedings pertain to items 1 and 3 of power of attorney dated 19.02.2019. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner is confined to item – 2 of the power of attorney. 3. Referring to the two counter affidavits of the fourth respondent, learned counsel submits that the second counter affidavit draws reference to the alleged sale of plots in an unapproved lay out. With regard to this aspect, learned counsel submits that nothing can be added to or deleted from the orders of the respondents herein. The said orders would have to be self-

sustaining and cannot be justified on an additional ground raised in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel cites the judgment in the State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. M/s.OASYS Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1142, particularly paragraphs 27 and 28 thereof and points out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held therein categorically that post facto rationalisation cannot be resorted to in order to cure an inherently arbitrary action.

4. In response to these contentions, learned Special Government Pleader submits that a protest petition was received from the principal, Lakshmanan. Although Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, is not referred to in the orders impugned herein, he submits that it was noticed by the respondents that an unapproved lay out was created by Mr.Lakshmanan and that various plots have been conveyed. He points out that the principal, Lakshmanan, continued to convey plots even after executing the power of attorney in favour of E.Seeralan.

5. The impugned order of the Sub Registrar, which was affirmed