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) 37663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
C.Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
WMP NO. 17025 OF 2026|WMP NO. 17024 OF 2026



Advocates:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef
For Respondent(s):Mr.P.Harish Govt.Advocate

Non-speaking refusal orders by registration authorities violating natural justice principles are quashed and remanded for fresh hearing.

Headnote:The Registration Act governs refusal of document registration. Petitioners sought registration of partition deed for property measuring 2.23.7 cents in survey nos 35/1, 35/7A1, 90/6 at Mannur village, refused via check slip dated 20.01.2026 citing prior document by first petitioner's sister. Court found refusal order non-speaking and violative of natural justice due to lack of hearing and consideration of petitioner's compromise with sister. Key issue: Whether refusal slip is valid without hearing petitioner or addressing contentions. Ratio: Registration authorities must issue speaking orders post opportunity of hearing; non-speaking refusals breach natural justice principles, warranting quashing and remand. Writ petition allowed; refusal slip quashed, matter remanded to Sub-Registrar for fresh consideration with directions to decide within timelines after hearing parties.

Table of Content
1. challenges to refusal of partition deed registration (Para 1 , 2)
2. non-consideration of petitioner's contentions and documents (Para 3 , 4)
3. quash refusal and remand for fresh consideration (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 20.01.2026 issued by the third respondent, refusing to register the partition deed dated 20.01.2026 presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the very same property, which is the subject matter of the partition deed presented by the petitioner for registration was already dealt with by the first petitioner’s sister.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the impugned refusal check slip dated 20.01.2026 is a non speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned refusal check slip dated 20.01.2026.

3. According to the petitioner, the first petitioner and his sister, who had executed the earlier document, which has been relied upon by the third respondent have compromised the dispute amongst themselves and therefore, the third respondent ought not to have relied upon the said document executed by the first petitioner’s sister for refusing to register the partition deed presented by the petitioner for registration.

4. As seen from the impugned refusal check slip dated 20.01.2026, the petitioner’s contentions as raised in this writ petition along with the petitioner’s supporting documents have not been considered by the third respondent. The petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the third respondent prior to passing of the impugned refusal check slip dated

20.01.2026.

5. Since the impugned refusal check slip dated 20.01.2026 is a non-

speaking order and is an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, necessarily, the impugned refusal check slip dated 20.01.2026 has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 20.01.2026 issued by the third respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall submit a written explanation to the third respondent along with supporting documents, stating as to why there is no legal impediment for the third respondent to register the partition deed dated 20.01.2026 presented by the petitioner for registration within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, within the stipulated time, the third respondent after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by the petitioner, shall take a final decision as to whether the partition deed dated 20.01.2026 can be registered or not within a period of three weeks thereafter, after hearing all the necessary parties.

7. In case, the third respondent decides to refuse registration of the partition deed dated 20.01.2026 presented by the petitioner, the third respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No.17024 of 2026 is ordered subject to payment of separate Court fee and W.M.P. No.17025 of 2026 is closed.

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