Madras High CourtWP/2075/2026disposed of

Lakshmi v. The Sub Registrar

2026-02-03Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Lakshmi W/o.Paramasivam 2/42, Kaatukottai, Somanpatti, Vazhappady, Salem-636 115 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Sub Registrar Vazhappady, Salem District.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip in No.RFL/ Vazhappady/ 110/ 2025 dated 29.12.2025 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 29.12.2025 presented by the petitioner For Petitioner(s):

Mr.L.Ramanathan For Respondent(s):

Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu,

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner had executed agreement of sale dated 15.04.1997 in favour of one Angamuthu, which was registered as Document No.956 of 1997. Asserting that the balance sale consideration was required to be paid within a period of one year from the date of execution thereof and that the same was not paid, the petitioner endeavoured to register a cancellation agreement. The request for registration was refused on the ground that the cancellation is being presented by one party to the agreement for sale. Hence this writ petition.

2. Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the sole respondent. He submits that there is no infirmity in the order refusing to register the cancellation deed. He, however, adds that the earlier agreement of sale would not be an impediment if the petitioner were to endeavour to register conveyances in relation to the property.

3. On perusal of agreement of sale bearing Document No.956 of 1997, it appears that the document contains a stipulation that the balance sale consideration is required to be paid within one year from the date of execution thereof. The second proviso to Section 34C, which came into force on

23.01.2026, enables the registering officer to refuse registration if the period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale had not expired. Prima facie, it appears that the period of limitation may have expired in the case at hand. Therefore, it appears that there should not be an impediment if the petitioner is desirous of conveying the property. The order refusing to register unilateral cancellation of the sale agreement is, however, in order and no interference is warranted with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 03-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RNA To The Sub Registrar Vazhappady, Salem District.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA 03-02-2026