V.Rajaram v. The Sub Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2026 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.No.13114 of 2026 1.V.Rajaram 2.V.Ramanathan 3.V.Karunakaran 4.P.Eswari 5.G.Kalavathi 6.P.Premavathi ... Petitioners Vs.
The Sub-Registrar, SRO Thiruvalur (Joint 02), No.201, J N Road, Taluk Office Compound, Thiruvallur - 602 001.
... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned refusal memo/Thadai manu dated 20.09.2021 taken on record by the respondent in relation to Survey No.79/6, 79/7 and 71/11 located at No.85, Thamaraipakkam Village, Thiruvallur District with the jurisdiction of SRO, Thiruvallur DistrictJoint 2 and Quash the same and remove any restrictions on the registration of documents concerning the said Schedule Property on the basis of the Thadai Manu dated 20.09.2021.
Page No.1 of 7
For Petitioners : Ms.Hema Srinivasan For Respondent : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned protest petition dated 20.09.2021 taken on record by the respondent for the property morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition. The aforesaid protest petition dated 20.09.2021 was filed by one E.Vasudevan, who is not a party respondent in this writ petition.
2. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. The petitioners submit that they are proposing to present a sale deed for registration. According to them, the protest petition submitted by the third party on 20.09.2021, which is impugned in this writ petition, is illegal. According to the petitioners, pursuant to an order passed by this Court, E.Vasudevan, the said third party, has no legal right over the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petiton. Page No.2 of 7
4. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' submissions. However, whenever any document is presented for registration, the respondent will have to take a final decision as to whether the said document can be registered or not, within a reasonable time. The respondent cannot allow the document presented for registration to be kept in cold storage without taking any final decision. The party who has filed the protest petition will have to be heard by the respondent as and when any document is presented for registration pertaining to the very same property, which is the subject matter of the protest petition.
5. The petitioners seeks registration of a sale deed in respect of the property morefully disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. Admittedly, a protest petition has been filed by a third party (E.Vasudevan) opposing the registration of document pertaining to the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. The petitioners contend that the said E.Vasudevan does not have any legal right over the property owned by the petitioners. The petitioners also categorically Page No.3 of 7
contend that since the protest petition was filed in the year 2021, the said protest petition cannot be acted upon by the respondent at this belated stage. All these contentions will have to be considered by the respondent while conducting an enquiry with regard to the registration of the sale deed to be presented by the petitioners for registration. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the respective contentions as it is for the respondent to consider the same.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to conduct enquiry as and when any sale deed is presented by the petitioners for registration with the respondent pertaining to the property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, and after hearing the contentions of the petitioners as well as the objections, if any, raised by the said E.Vasudevan, who has filed the impugned protest petition, dated 20.09.2021, and after giving due consideration to the same as well as the supporting documents produced by the respective parties, the respondent shall take a final decision as to whether the sale deed presented by the petitioners can be registered or not, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of re-presentation of Page No.4 of 7
the sale deed by the petitioners for registration. In case, the respondent decides to refuse registration of sale deed presented by the petitioners, the respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioners as well as the supporting documents produced by the parties. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.04.2026 Index : Yes / No (2/2) Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To The Sub-Registrar, SRO Thiruvalur (Joint 02), No.201, J N Road, Taluk Office Compound, Thiruvallur - 602 001.
Page No.5 of 7
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
sp 06.04.2026 (2/2) Page No.6 of 7
W.M.P.No.13113 of 2026 in ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Ordered on payment of separate court fee.
06.04.2026 sp (1⁄2) Page No.7 of 7