The Sub Registrar cannot entertain title disputes during registration, but peculiar circumstances can justify their refusal.

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records related to the impugned order dated 06.10.2022 concerning pending Document No.70 of 2021, which was presented on 08.02.2022, to quash the order and, consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to register and release the document as pending Document No.70 of 2021.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and reviewing the materials on record, the petitioner's case is that the property in Survey No.73/1B1, covering 82 cents, located at A.Valayapatti Village, Alagarkovil Road, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, was originally owned by Malayalam. He died intestate, leaving behind three legal heirs: Alagammal, Oyyakkal, and Pothumponnu. The patta is also in the name of the said Malayalam.

3. According to the petitioner, the legal heirs of Malayalam jointly executed a sale agreement in favour of the petitioner. When the document was submitted for registration, it was initially kept pending, and ultimately, the impugned order was passed refusing registration, which was also upheld by the first respondent.

Aggrieved by this, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that when the petitioner, with full knowledge, intends to purchase the property and has paid the amount, the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to inquire into the question of title when a sale agreement is presented for registration. However, as if deciding the matter as a Civil Court, intricate questions relating to Patta and title have been examined by the Sub Registrar, and the impugned order has been passed.

5. The learned counsel also argued that the objections regarding the production of parent documents and Patta are unjustified, since the current Patta was produced along with a certified copy of the original document. Therefore, the learned counsel contends, the impugned orders are not sustainable. The learned counsel would also rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi vs. The Sub Registrar and others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740, wherein it has been held that the Sub Registrar cannot venture into questions relating to title.

6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that several petitions and third-party objections had been received regarding the subject property. The Sub Registrar, after considering these and providing detailed reasons, passed the impugned order of refusal. According to him, the refusal was based not only on the ground of title but also on the repeated execution of sale agreements and the failure to obtain Patta in separate names. He further submits that an appeal challenging the refusal check slip was also filed before the Deputy Registrar, which was dismissed.

7. The learned counsel representing the third respondent submitted that Malayalam had previously filed O.S.No.195 of 2012 against the predecessors-in- title of the third respondent before the District Munsif Court, Madurai. During the pendency of the suit, Malayalam passed away, and the executants of the present agreement, namely Alagammal, Oyyakkal, and Pothumponnu, who are his legal heirs, were added as plaintiffs. It is also stated that one of the legal heirs,

Alagammal, has since died. Although the suit was for an injunction, the parties raised issues related to title and possession, and the Trial Court ultimately ruled against the vendors of the petitioner, dismissing the suit.

8. It is further submitted that the property was originally sold to Vasudevan Chettiyar, and the Pa