Sub-Registrar must verify title documents, afford hearing, and issue speaking order before refusing sale deed registration.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated

07.03.2025 issued by the respondent, refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration on the ground that the very same property was already conveyed through a settlement deed by a third party.

2. The petitioners categorically contend before this Court that the first petitioner is the absolute owner of the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition. The petitioners have also produced parent document for the subject property and they have also traced their title to establish that the first petitioner is the absolute owner of the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.

3. The revenue records pertaining to the subject property standing in the name of the first petitioner is also produced by the petitioners before this Court. According to the petitioners, by total non application of mind, the respondent has refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration on the ground that the very same property has already been conveyed by a third party much earlier.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the parent document for the subject property and he would submit that the first petitioner traces his title to the sale deed of the year 1985.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also drew the attention of this Court to the settlement deed, which has been relied upon by the respondent in the impugned order and would submit that the subject settlement deed does not pertain to the petitioners’ property. He would submit that the survey number disclosed in the settlement deed relied upon by the respondent does not tally with the survey number of the petitioners’ property. Further, the property, which is the subject matter of the settlement deed is classified as “Sarkar Poramboke”, whereas the first petitioner’s property is a patta property.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the respondent has erroneously, by total non application of mind, adjudicated the title of the property through the impugned order. He would also submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioners, as raised in this writ petition, the respondent has passed the impugned order.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners have already paid the stamp duty for a sum of Rs.15,26,210/- towards registration fees.

8. Mr. P. Harish, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

9. Admittedly, as seen from the impugned order, the contentions of the petitioners as raised in this writ petition referred to supra has not been considered by the respondent. The petitioners have produced documents along with this writ petition to substantiate their case that the first petitioner is the absolute owner of the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition and there is no legal impediment for the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration.

10. The first petitioner has also traced the title over the property and has also produced parent document and the revenue records in support of the petitioners’ contentions that the first petitioner is the absolute owner of the property and they are in possession of the same.

11. On a prima facie consideration, this Court also finds that the settlement deed relied upon by the respondent does not tally with the property owned by the first petiti