Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
V.Chelladurai – Appellant
Versus
1.The District Registrar, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.288 of 2026|C.M.P(MD)No.2967 of 2026|W.P(MD)No.2483 of 2024
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For the Respondents:Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader, Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.side), Mr.N.Tamilmani, Mr.D.Srinivasa Ragavan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment delivery by the justices. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellant's challenge to the dismissal of a writ petition. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's authority regarding document registration. (Para 4) |
| 4. outcome directing the registration process. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.2483 of 2024, dated 07.02.2024, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to directing the second respondent to register a sale deed executed between the appellant and the 8th respondent.
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides and persuing the materials on record, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. The appellant has presented the sale deed for registration, but the same was refused on the ground that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing has raised an objection. When a query was raised as to whether any attachment order had been passed by a Court or the Government, the respondents stated that no such attachment order had been issued so far. It was further submitted that the respondents are only in the process of preparing an application before the concerned Court for attachment of the property under Section 8 of the Act. It is relevant to note that, with regard to refusal of registration, this Court in Subramni vs. Sub-Registrar reported in (2024) 3 MLJ 588 has held that a document cannot be refused registration merely on the basis of an objection letter from the investigation authorities, in the absence of any attachment order passed by a Court or competent authority. As a matter of right, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register such a document.
5. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
6. The second respondent is directed to register the document, if presented by the petitioner. It is however, open to the respondents to proceed with attachment of the property in accordance with law. Mere registration of the document will not take away the right of the respondents to seek an attachment in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
