M.Govindaraj v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

1. M.Govindaraj

2. S.Saravanan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Sub Registrar, Pernampettu, Vellore District.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Refusal Number RFL/Pernampattu/2/2026 dated 27.05.2026 on the file of the respondent herein and to quash the same and directing the respondent to receive and register the sale deed dated 27.05.2026 executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner in accordance with law.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.s.Subbiah, Senior Counsel for Ms.Elizabeth Ravi For Respondent(s):

Mr.M.Roshan Atiq, Government's Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Refusal Number RFL/Pernampattu/2/2026 dated 27.05.2026 on the file of the

respondent herein and to quash the same and directing the respondent to receive and register the sale deed dated 27.05.2026 executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the subject property was originally belonged to one Mr.D.Kothandarama Naidu, the maternal uncle of the first petitioner. The said Mr.D.Kothandarama Naidu has executed a Will dated 13.05.1993, registered as Doc.No.20 of 1993 in favour of the first petitioner herein. Despite which, some more parties claim right over the properties and attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment. Therefore, the first petitioner instituted suits on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham. Under this circumstances, the first petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the second petitioner and presented the same for registration, which was refused to be registered by issuing a refusal slip dated 27.05.2026. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that without serving any notice or affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent has passed the impugned order, which is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

4. Mr.M.Rosha Atiq, learned Government's Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent and fairly submits that this Court may set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. In the present case, if the respondent intended to reject the registration of the document, they were required to conduct an enquiry, after issuing due notice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, before deciding the matter. However, in the case on hand, without conducting the said enquiry, the respondent passed the impugned order mechanically. Thus, the impugned order dated 27.05.2026 is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Consequently, this Court directs the petitioners to represent the document for registration before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such receipt, the respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing due notice to the petitioners as well as other aggrieved parties, if any, within a period of four weeks thereafter. On completion of the said exercise, the respondent is directed to return the documents to the petitioners.

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

16-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VM To:

The Sub Registrar, Pernampettu, Vellore District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

VM 16-06-2026