K.Palanisamy v. The Sub Registrar
2025:MHC:2257
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-07-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WP No. 22016 of 2025 and WMP No. 24750 of 2025 K.Palanisamy Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Sub Registrar Gandhipuram, O/o.Sub Registrar, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore.
2.Ganagurubaran 3.B.M.Rangan 4.R.Ravichandran 5.D.Mohan Kumar 6.N.G.Jolly 7.C.Sheyamala 8.C.Dhanalakshmi 9.A.Eswaramoorthy Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records on the file of the 1 st respondent in his proceedings letter No.157/2025 dated 29.04.2025
communicated on 30.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and null and void without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 1 st respondent to register the sale agreement dated 22.04.2025 entered between petitioner with 2 nd respondent.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondent(s):
Mr.Abishek Murthy, GA For R1
ORDER
By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. In view of the order that this Court proposes to pass and also the limited relief that is sought to be granted, notice to respondents 2 to 9 is dispensed with.
2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the refusal slip dated 29.04.2025 whereby the letter/ proceedings dated 29.04.2025 was issued refusing to register the sale agreement dated 22.04.2025 entered into between petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 inter-alia on the premise that there have been more than one prior sale effected in respect of the subject property. The relevant portions of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the refusal to register by examining the validity of the title over the subject property st respondent. In any view, he would is in excess of the jurisdiction of the 1 nd and 3 rd respondents who are the parties to the sale agreement are submit that 2 the actual owners of the subject property and have traced the title to the subject property over 40 years. He would also submit that the impugned order/ proceedings has been issued refusing registration without affording any opportunity for him to respond and thus the entire proceedings is in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. At the outset, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of st respondent would submit that the petitioner may re-present the document the 1 and treat the impugned communication/ letter as notice and submit his response/ explanation to the reasons set out therein along with documentary evidence in support thereof. If any such re-presentation along with response and documentary is presented, the same would be considered and sale agreement would be registered by the appropriate authority, if it is otherwise in order.
5. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of. It is open to the petitioner to re-present the sale agreement by treating the impugned communication/ letter as notice and submit his response/ explanation to the reasons set out therein along with documentary evidence in support thereof before the appropriate authority/ respondent. The concerned respondent shall consider the response along with documentary evidence, if any submitted and register the document if it is otherwise in order, if for any reason the registering authority finds that the registration ought to be refused, the same shall be done after assigning reasons and after putting the petitioner and other interested parties on notice. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the writ petition. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
21-07-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni
To:
The Sub Registrar Gandhipuram, O/o.Sub Registrar, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore.
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
Jeni 21-07-2025