Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 39087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
S.Muthukrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli District – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD) No.7639 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondent:Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate
Sub-Registrar cannot refuse document registration based on title disputes without proper enquiry and survey number verification.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a Refusal Check Slip issued by the Sub-Registrar under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash it and direct registration of a sale deed. The property traces title to a 1930 court auction sale, with subsequent conveyances to the petitioner, despite an intervening sale by unrelated parties. The court held that the Sub-Registrar lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes and must verify survey numbers before refusing registration. The primary issue was whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration based on a title dispute arising from a later sale deed by third parties. The court reasoned that registrars cannot inquire into title validity, and refusal requires proper enquiry with notice to all parties, emphasizing verification of survey numbers first. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the Refusal Check Slip, remitting the matter for verification of survey numbers, and directing registration or enquiry as appropriate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges refusal of sale deed registration due to survey number error. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. sub-registrar lacks jurisdiction over title disputes. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. title traces to 1930; requires verification and enquiry. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. set aside refusal; direct verification and conditional registration. (Para 8) |
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 18.12.2025 issued by the respondent and also seeking consequential direction to the respondent to register the Sale Deed dated
26.08.2025 presented by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property was originally purchased by one Lakshmanan Chettiar and Subramanian Chettiar by way of a Court auction sale and they became the owners of the property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 02.08.1930. Thereafter, they sold the property to one Krishna Devar. The legal heirs of the said Krishna Devar are now conveying the property to the petitioner herein. It is submitted that there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s title. However, on the ground that in the interregnum, certain unconnected parties, namely, Eshwaramoorthi Devar and others, had executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Pichakar Devar, the document presented by the petitioner has been refused to be registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to go into questions of title. It is also contended that even assuming there is a case of double entry, the document executed at a later point of time by Eshwaramoorthi Devar and others ought not to have been registered, inasmuch as the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title has been in possession of valid title from as early as
1930.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate, taking notice on behalf of the respondent, would submit that the petitioner has not impleaded the contesting party as a respondent in the Writ Petition.
5. In reply thereto, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no objections have been submitted by any third party and the petitioner is not even aware of the details of such persons. The learned counsel would further submit that the correct Survey Number, in respect of which the present document has been presented, is S.No.1048/3. However, the impugned Refusal Check Slip appears to have been issued by erroneously treating the property as if it relates to S.No.1043/3. Therefore, the respondent, Sub Registrar, has to first verify and reconcile the same.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title is able to trace title to the property up to the Sale Deed dated 02.08.1930. Merely because, in the interregnum, certain third parties have executed subsequent documents, the petitioner’s document cannot be refused to be registered. In any event, once proceedings are undertaken, it is desirable that an enquiry be conducted in the presence of such third parties and an order be passed so that the same would bind all concerned parties, including the petitioner.
8. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:
i. The impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 18.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent.
ii. The Sub Registrar shall first verify and reconcile the Survey Number with reference to the document presented by the petitioner and the document allegedly executed by Eshwaramoorthi Devar and others.
iii.If the documents do not relate to the same Survey Number, the petitioner’s document shall be registered forthwith.
iv. If the Survey Number is found to be the same, notice shall be issued to the petitioner as well as the concerned third parties, and an enquiry shall be conducted, after which appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law.
v. No costs.
