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) 37228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Syed Ahamed Kabir – Appellant
Versus
Inspector General of Registrar – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Mr.T.Joshua
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate

Sub-Registrar must receive and process duly presented sale deed by power agent expeditiously; mandamus denied pre-presentation.

Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to direct registration authorities to accept a sale deed executed via power of attorney for specified survey numbers totaling 109.37 acres. The court examined whether the Sub-Registrar must register without presentation or provide reasons for refusal. The court held that registration requires proper document presentation by authorized agent, after which authorities must process expeditiously. The primary issue was whether the power agent could compel acceptance without formal presentation. The ratio decidendi is that Sub-Registrars must receive and decide on duly presented documents per law; refusal requires reasons, but mandamus cannot issue pre-presentation. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to present the document via token and appointment, directing expeditious processing thereafter.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for sale deed registration via power agent. (Para 1 , 2)
2. registration requires formal document presentation by agent. (Para 3)
3. liberty granted for presentation; petition disposed with directions. (Para 4)

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to receive the sale deed dated 27.02.2026 in respect of the landed properties comprised in Survey Nos.191 to 196, 198, 200, 209, and 213/2, situated within the limits of Sayalkudi, and to proceed in accordance with law.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a Power of Attorney has been executed by the petitioners in favour of one V.Rajendiran and that, when the said V.Rajendiran seeks to deal with the property, the document is not being accepted for registration. It is further contended that the Sub-Registrar ought to either assign reasons for refusal or assure registration of the document.

3. Such a contention cannot be accepted, and the relief sought for cannot be granted. If the said V.Rajendiran, as power agent, is duly authorised to present the document, and if the principals are the owners of the property, it is open to the petitioners to present the document for registration. Only upon such presentation can the Sub-Registrar consider the document and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

4. In view of the above, liberty is granted to the petitioners to present the document by generating the necessary token, fixing an appointment, and presenting the same before the third respondent. Upon such presentation, the document shall be received, processed, and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No 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