BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 02/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY A.Baskar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Sub-Registrar, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District.

2. E.Valliammal ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 1st respondent in Refusal Number RFL/Valliyur/68/2025 dated 31.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequently directing the 1st respondent to register the sale deed dated 31.12.2025 executed by the petitioner upon re-presentation, within stipulated time fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel for M/s B.Saravanan Associates For R1 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 1st respondent in Refusal Number RFL/Valliyur/68/2025 dated 31.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequently directing the 1st respondent to register the sale deed dated 31.12.2025 executed by the petitioner upon re-presentation, within a time frame.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's sale deed dated 31.12.2025 was refused to be registered by the first respondent on the ground that the properties mentioned in the said sale deed form part of a sale deed in Document No.337/2007 executed in favour of the 2^nd respondent, due to which, ownership of the subject property of the petitioner could not be ascertained. He would further submit that no enquiry was conducted, as mandated in the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2017 Madras 203 in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and another

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that enquiry will be conducted by the first respondent and appropriate orders will be passed.

4. Considering the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the impugned order has been passed merely based on the objections raised by the second respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without following the law laid down by this Court in AIR 2017 Madras 203 (supra). Accordingly, the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 31.12.2025 issued by the first respondent is set aside. The petitioner is directed to re-present the document, and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to conduct enquiry strictly in accordance with the law laid down in the above judgment and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

5. In the result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

02.02.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala To

1. The Sub-Registrar, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

bala ORDER MADE IN DATED : 02.02.2026