BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 13/02/2026 CORAM The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Marimuthu ... Petitioner Vs The Sub-Registrar, Singampunari Sub Registrar Office, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent 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 cheque slip No. RFL /Singampunari/149/2025 dated 22.12.2025 of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to register the lease deed document presented by the petitioner for registration within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.G.Vallarasu Chezhiyan For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan Addl. Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip dated 22.12.2025 issued by the respondent and to direct the respondent to register the lease deed dated 22.12.2025 presented by the petitioner for registration.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondent. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. When the petitioner presented the lease deed for registration, the same was refused to be registered by the respondent on the following grounds:

(i) Petitioner failed to file life certificate and (ii) There is already a registered sale agreement in respect of the very same property under agreement dated 24.03.2016, which is pending Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as far as life certificate is concerned, they have produced the life certificate on the same day and with regard to the sale agreement is concerned, it is not a bar for executing a lease agreement and there is no bar for the same and it is between the petitioner and the agreement holder and the purchaser of the property and hence, there is no bar for registration of the lease deed.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that since there is no life certificate produced in respect of the principal and since as on the date of registration, a sale agreement is registered and pending for a period of three years. On those grounds, the respondent has rightly rejected to register, which does not warrant interference.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. It appears that in the present case, as rightly contended by both sides, the petitioner intends to execute a lease deed as power agent and while registering the lease deed, life certificate of the principal is to be produced. However, though the life certificate was presented on the same day, the respondent has not taken into consideration of the said life certificate. The petitioner has already into an agreement of sale with one Padma for valid consideration and even after a lapse of three years, the said agreement has not been finalized as final amount has not been paid. Hence, now the petitioner intends to enter into a lease agreement with one Mani and presented the document for registration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, there is no bar for the lease deed to get registered when the earlier sale agreement is pending and it is between the purchaser, the petitioner and the lease holder and hence, citing the sale agreement, the document cannot be refused to be registered. Therefore, there is no impediment for the respondent to register the lease deed presented by the petitioner. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to represent the lease deed dated 22.12.2025 and upon such representation, the respondent shall register the same forthwith, if the same is otherwise in order.

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direct