S.D.John Birtto Chandra Bose, v. The District Registrar (Admn.,)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE S.D.John Birtto Chandra Bose ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Registrar (Admn.,) Office of The District Registrar, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.

2. The Joint Sub Registrar -I office of the Joint Sub Registrar-I Tambaram Chennai-45

3. The Sub Registrar Selaiyur ..Respondent(s) Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2025 in registering the sale deed dated 27.12.1989 executed by Moongilan Naicker S/o.Narayanaswamy Naicker in the petitioner's favour which was kept pending document bearing No.570 of 1989 in the office of the 2nd respondent now the 3rd respondent be registered and assigned regular registration number if not registered and release the same to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s):

Ms.U.Bhuvaneswari For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Harish, GA

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to register the sale deed dated 27.12.1989 presented by Moongilan Naicker for registration.

2. According to the petitioner, he had purchased the property in question under the aforesaid sale deed. According to him, till date, the aforesaid document has not been registered by the third respondent. The petitioner had given a representation on 29.12.2025 requesting the third respondent to register the aforesaid sale deed. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, and at the outset, he submits that the petitioner seeks to register the sale deed presented for registration on 27.12.1989. He further submits that, due to the long passage of time, first, it is to be ascertained as to whether the statement made by the petitioner that a sale deed was presented on 27.12.1989 by one Moongilan Naicker is true or not. He further submits that the respondents shall consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2025 on merits and in accordance with law, and pass final orders as to whether aforesaid sale deed was indeed presented or not, and if so, whether there is any legal impediment for the respondents to register the aforesaid sale deed.

4. If the aforesaid sale deed was indeed presented before the third respondent, the third respondent shall take a decision as to whether the said sale deed can be registered or not, and therefore, in the interest of justice, to know the status of the sale deed dated 27.12.1989 said to have been presented by the petitioner, this Court directs the third respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2025, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. 08-04-2026 RKM To

1. The District Registrar (Admn.,) Office of The District Registrar, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045

2. The Joint Sub Registrar -I office of the Joint Sub Registrar-I Tambaram Chennai-45

3. The Sub Registrar Selaiyur

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

RKM 08-04-2026