The Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration of a document solely due to title disputes unless it is proven the vendor has no title over the property in question.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

It is a case where the document presented for registration by the first respondent/writ petitioner was not received by the Sub Registrar, in view of the rival claim made by the appellant herein. Hence, the first respondent/writ petitioner has approached this Court by way of a writ petition seeking certiorarified mandamus challenging the refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar/second respondent vide proceedings dated 01.07.2024 and for a consequential direction to the Sub Registrar to register the writ petitioner's sale deed dated 06.06.2024.

2.It is pertinent to note that the first respondent/writ petitioner had preferred the writ petition only against the Sub Registrar and has not impleaded the rival claimant/appellant herein, who objected the registration and succeeded before the Sub Registrar.

3.Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had intervened and stated about the dispute before the civil Court between the writ petitioner and the appellant herein and identification of the property, which is sought to be registered. However, the learned Single Judge taking note of the said objection raised by the appellant/intervenor had passed the following order:

“3.It is seen the petitioner-s vendors have preferred an appeal along with condone delay petition and the same is pending. The petitioner's vendors have filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the other defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession. In the judgment, the trial Court has held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are having entire 82 cents by relying on the common patta issued in the name of another person namely, Suryamurthy (the 5th defendant in the suit). Based on the joint patta, the injunction is declined. Even if the joint patta is taken into consideration, atleast the petitioner would be having ½ share in the joint patta. Therefore, it cannot be stated the petitioner is not having any interest in the property at all. Further through the impugned order, the respondent has elaborately discussed the rights of the parties and has stated that the petitioner-s vendors are not having title based on the suit decree.

4. This Court is of the view that title cannot be determined by the Sub Registrar. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner even if the joint patta is taken into consideration, the petitioner is having atleast ½ share. The allegation by the intervenor is that the petitioner is claiming S.No.73/1B. But the intervenor's claim is with regard to S.Nos.73/1A and 73/2A. Of course there may be some overlapping which has to be adjudicated before the Civil Court. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot pass the impugned order. Further, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent cannot sit as a civil Court to determine the title dispute. Hence, the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 is quashed. The respondent is directed to register the sale deed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending appeal suit, the parties rights may be adjudicated and all the plea are available to all the parties and they can adjudicate before the appellate court.”

4.Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an application seeking leave of this Court to prefer an appeal, which was considered by this Court and after hearing the writ petitioner/first respondent herein, leave was granted vide order dated 08.12.2025.

5.Mr.M.Rajesh,