N.Valliammal v. The District Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and WMP No.32752 of 2025 1.N.Valliammal 2.Selvam ... petitioners Vs.
1.The District Registrar, Dharmapuri.
2.The Sub Registrar, Hosur, Dharmapuri District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus, call for the entire records relating to impugned proceedings dated 17.07.2025 in Na.Ka.No.105/2025 and the RFL/Morrapur/56/2025 dated 21.07.2025 on the file of the second respondent quash the same and consequently directing the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 21.07.2025 in respect of 417/2B Dry land measuring an extent of 0.18.35 Acres situated at Vakurapapampatti Village, Karimangalam Taluk, Morappur Sub Registration District, Dharmapuri District within a stipulated period of time as fixed by this Court.
1/6
For petitioner(s) : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan For Respondent(s) : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader
ORDER
By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 17.07.2025 in Na.Ka.No.105/2025 and the RFL/Morrapur/56/2025 dated 21.07.2025 on the file of the second respondent and consequently, direct the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 21.07.2025 in respect of property comprised in S.No.417/2B Dry land measuring an extent of 0.18.35 Acres situated at Vakurapapampatti Village, Karimangalam Taluk, Morappur Sub Registration District, Dharmapuri District within a time fixed by this Court.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners presented a sale deed on 30.04.2025 for registration before the second respondent. The second respondent refused to register the same stating that an objection petition has been filed by one Jayanthi and based on the impugned proceedings dated 17.07.2025 wherein it has been stated that as per previous 2/6
Doc.No.1510/2011, the said Jayanthi and one Venkatesh have got equal share in respect of the subject property as the legal heirs of Chokkalingam. Therefore, second respondent directed to approach competent civil court since there is a dispute with respect to title/right over the subject property.
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the refusal is made unilaterally without even putting the petitioners on notice, thereby denying the petitioners any opportunity to respond. It is submitted that petitioners had not been furnished with a copy of the protest petition to the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned order is thus vitiated on the ground of having been made in violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that they would furnish a copy of the protest petition filed by Jeyanthi and Venkatesh to the petitioners. If the petitioners re-present the sale deed dated 30.04.2025 along with response to the protest petition, they would conduct an enquiry after issuing notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, Jayanthi and Venkatesh and all other interested parties who had presented the document and thereafter, they would register the sale deed, if it is otherwise in order, in accordance with law. If, for any reason, the Sub Registrar 3/6
is of the view that the registration ought to be refused, he would do so after assigning reasons, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. In view thereof, the impugned proceedings dated 17.07.2025 and refusal slip dated 21.07.2025 are set aside. The second respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the protest petition filed by Jeyanthi and Venkatesh to the petitioners. It is open to the petitioners to submit his response to the protest petition before the second respondent. On receipt of any such response, the second respondent shall conduct enquiry after issuing notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, Jayanthi and Venkatesh and all other interested parties who had presented the document and thereafter the second respondent shall register the sale deed, if it is otherwise in order, in accordance with law. If for any reason, the second respondent refuses to register the sale deed, he shall assign reasons in the refusal order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.
4/6
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11.08.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No mrn To:
1.The District Registrar, Dharmapuri.
2.The Sub Registrar, Hosur, Dharmapuri District.
5/6
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
mrn 11.08.2025 6/6