Madras High CourtWP/7979/2026disposed of

Kumar v. The Inspector General Of Registration

2026-03-05Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE AND WMP NO. 8633 OF 2026

1. Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Inspector General Of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai 600028.

2.The District Registrar Collectorate Compound, State Bank Road, Coimbatore Central and District 641018 3.The Sub Registrar No.363, Gandhi Nagar, Near Quarry Office, Palakkad Main Road, Madukkarai, Coimbatore 641105.

4.The Sub Registrar - Joint I State Bank Road, Coimbatore 641018.

5.The Sub Registrar - Joint Ii Old No.591-A, New No.410-A, Raja Street, Coimbatore 641001.

6.Murugesan 7.Subbathal Respondent(s) PRAYER To pass a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ to quash the impugned Refusal Slip vide Nos.5/2026, 6/2026 and 7/2026 dated

20.01.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent and further directing the 3rd respondent to register my property and to pass necessary further orders. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.T.Rekha For Respondent(s):

Mr.U.Baranidharan,SGP For R1 to R5 R6 and R7 - Notice dispensed with

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned refusal check slips issued by the 3rd respondent all dated 20.01.2026, refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration. The petitioner is the purchaser in the said sale deed.

2. Under the impugned refusal check slips, the 3rd respondent has refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on the ground that the property was already conveyed through a registered document bearing No. 2041 of 1998 in favour of the 7th respondent.

3. The petitioner categorically contends before this Court that his vendor, under the sale deed presented for registration before the 3rd respondent, is the absolute owner of the property and that the 7th respondent has no title or interest over the same.

4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and also on the ground that the order is a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner as raised in this writ petition.

5. Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondents 6 and 7, notice to the respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with by this Court.

6. As seen from the impugned refusal check slips all dated 20.01.2026, the 7th respondent in whose favour the third respondent has stated that a registered document for the very same property stands through Document No. 2041 of 1998, was not called for enquiry by the third respondent. Unless and until a copy of the said document was placed on record before the 3rd respondent and a copy of the same was also furnished to the petitioner, the truth cannot be unearthed with regard to the fact that who is the previous owner of the subject property since the 7th respondent was not called for the enquiry by the 3rd respondent.

7. This Court is of the considered view that without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to establish that the petitioner's vendor under the sale deed presented for registration, is the owner of the property, the 3rd

respondent has issued the impugned refusal check slips all dated 20.01.2026, which in the considered view of this Court, amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and will amount to passing of a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition.

8. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's respective contentions.

9. Only on the ground that the impugned refusal check slips all dated 20.01.2026 issued by the third respondent, is a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and the impugned order has also not given due consideration to the supporting documents produced by the petitioner and further the 7th respondent, in whose favour Document No. 2041 of 1998 stands, was not called for enquiry by the 3rd respondent, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it fit to quash the impugned refusal check slips dated 20.01.2026 and remand the matter back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

10. The petitioner shall submit a detailed explanation along with supporting documents once again to the 3rd respondent, stating as to why the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration can be registered by the third respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said written explanation along with supporting

documents from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent after giving notice to the petitioner as well as the 7th respondent, who is the purchaser under Document No. 2041 of 1998, and after hearing both the parties and after giving due consideration to the documents produced by both of them, shall take a final decision as to whether the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration can be registered or not.

11. The 3rd respondent is directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner's written explanation.

12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab

To 1.The Inspector General Of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai 600028.

4.The Sub Registrar - Joint I State Bank Road, Coimbatore 641018.

5.The Sub Registrar - Joint II Old No.591-A, New No.410-A, Raja Street, Coimbatore 641001.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

ab AND WMP NO. 8633 OF 2026 05-03-2026