SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
B.Subramaniam – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar Thottipalayam Thiruppur South Taluk Tiruppur District – Respondent
W.M.P. No.6455 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr.K.Devaraj
For the Respondent: Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, Additional Government Pleader

The registering officer must not adjudicate title but ascertain executants' authority to execute a document under the Registration Act.

Headnote:This judgment addresses a writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India regarding the rejection of a registration of a release deed. The Court emphasizes that while the registering officer cannot adjudicate on title, he can examine the power of the executants per Section 34-C of the Registration Act. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the deed subject to compliance with necessary registration requirements, emphasizing the need to notify joint pattadars before a decision is made. The relief granted is to set aside the previous order and allow for the process to continue correctly.

Table of Content
1. details of property and registration refusal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents' arguments on title adjudication. (Para 3)
3. court's observations on the registration process. (Para 4)

ORDER

Tracing title from one Mr.Mara Naicker in relation to land in Survey Nos.167 and 168 of Thottipalayam Village, Tiruppur District, the petitioner and the executants presented release deed dated 25.11.2025 before the registering officer. The request for registration was rejected under the impugned refusal check slip.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection order is liable to be set aside because the registering officer adjudicated on title and refused registration on the ground that it was not possible to determine the entitlement of the releasor.

3. Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the sole respondent. He submits that the reason for rejection is that joint pattas stand in the names of 41 persons as regards Patta No.1000 and in the names of 50 persons as regards Patta No.1005.

4. Given the fact that the petitioner claims to have inherited the property and has also disclosed the details of the joint pattadars, it is necessary that notice be issued to the joint pattadars before a decision is taken. While the registering officer does not have power to adjudicate on title, as per Section 34-C of the Registration Act, the registering officer may examine whether the executants have the power to execute the document. Reconsideration is, therefore, necessary to ascertain entitlement of the executants. In order to facilitate the same, the impugned refusal check slip is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to re-present the release deed for registration. Subject to fulfillment of other requirements relating to registration, after issuing notice to the joint pattadars, the registering officer shall either register the document or issue a speaking order of refusal under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. This action shall be taken within thirty days from the date of re-presentation.

5. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top