← Library
Madras High CourtWP/33241/2025disposed of

S.Santhi v. Sub Registrar

2025-09-04Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.09.2025

CORAM

The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Writ Petition No.33241 of 2025 Mrs.S.Santhi ...Petitioner Vs.

Sub Registrar, Koodavasal, Thiruvarur District.

... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to register the sale deed dated 20.08.2025 produced by the petitioner on 20.08.2025 for selling the petitioner's property situated at S.No.19/4, Kappanamangalam Village, Thiruvarur Taluk, Thiruvarur District, measuring about 4.14 acres within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Dhalapathy Vignesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate ***

O R D E R

1/6

Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent to register the sale deed dated 20.08.2025 produced by the petitioner on 20.08.2025 for selling the petitioner's property situated at S.No.19/4, Kappanamangalam Village, Thiruvarur Taluk, Thiruvarur District, measuring about 4.14 acres within a time frame fixed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the aforesaid property and after purchasing the property, she executed the General Power of Attorney on 13.05.2019 by appointing Mr.Suresh Babu as her power agent. Unfortunately, the power agent died on 08.08.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner intended to sell the property on 20.08.2025 by producing all the required documents. Further, she would submit that since the petitioner lost the original parent document, she has produced the certified copy of the 2/6

same. But the respondent failed to register the document on the sole ground that the original document was not produced by the petitioner. Hence,this writ petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent on instructions would submit that since no relevant documents were produced by the petitioner for registration, the respondent has not registered the sale deed. Further, he would submit that they are ready to register the sale deed, if the petitioner produces all the required documents.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they have already produced all the documents at the time of presentation of sale deed, but the respondent neither chosen to register the same nor issue the refusal slip.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court 3/6

directs the respondent to register the sale deed based on the documents produced by the petitioner. If the petitioner produces the certified copy of the documents, the respondent shall accept the same, if it otherwise in order and proceed in accordance with law. However, the respondent is at liberty to conduct enquiry if there is any doubt regarding the genuinity of the documents produced by the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that this order will not prevent the respondent from conducting the enquiry, in accordance with law.

8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

04.09.2025 Index : Yes / No : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No arr 4/6

To The Sub Registrar, Koodavasal, Thiruvarur District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

5/6

arr Writ Petition No.33241 of 2025 04.09.2025 6/6