Y.Afzal v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Y.Afzal ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Inspector General Of Registration Registration Department, Santhome, Chennai 600 004
2. The District Registrar Registration Departmnt, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District
3. The Sub Registrar, Kelambakkam Sub Registrar Office Kelambakkam Hengalpattu District ... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned Refusal slip dated 09.09.2025 in Refusal No. RFL / Kelambakkam / 4 / 2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same and consequenlty direct the 3rd respondent to register the sae Deed of the Petitioner dated 09.09.2025 in respect of his property in survey Nos 1401/ 11 and 1401/13, Plot Nos 177, 178 and 179 measuring 1/7
to an extent of 10800 Sq.Ft., sitated at Thaiyur village, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondent : Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal slip dated 09.09.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent.
2. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the subject property was purchased by the petitioner's mother vide sale deed dated 26.08.1966 and subsequently, she obtained the patta of the subject property in her name. Thereafter, she executed a 2/7
settlement deed dated 15.11.1995 in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner, being the absolute owner, is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any hindrance till date. However, the patta was not yet transferred in the name of the petitioner and it still stands in the name of petitioner's mother. Under these circumstances, now, the petitioner is intend to sell the said property to one R.Sudha and accordingly, executed sale deed dated 09.09.2025. When the said sale deed was presented for the purpose of registration, the respondent had refused to register the same vide the impugned refusal slip dated 09.09.2025 on the ground that the original documents were not produced.
5. Further, he would contend that the production of original documents is not at all necessary at the time of registration and hence, the reason assigned by the 3rd respondent is totally unsustainable. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the refusal slip dated 09.09.2025. 3/7
6. After taking instructions, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent had confirmed the submissions made by the petitioner and hence, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
8. In the case on hand, initially, the subject property was acquired by the petitioner vide settlement deed dated 15.11.1995 executed by his mother, who purchased the said property vide sale deed dated 26.08.1966. The said settlement deed was also registered with the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner, being the absolute owner, was in possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any hindrance. Under these circumstances, the petitioner had executed the sale deed dated 09.09.2025, pertaining to the said subject property, in favour of one R.Sudha. When the said sale deed was presented for the purpose of 4/7
registration, the respondent had refused to register the same vide impugned refusal slip dated 09.09.2025 on the ground that the original documents were not produced.
9. As rightly contended by the petitioner, the reason assigned by the 3rd respondent, with regard to the non-production of original documents at the time of registration, is not sustainable. The said aspect was very well settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pappu vs. Sub-Registrar (W.A.No.1160 of 2025) vide order dated 27.09.2024, whereby it was held that the original documents were not required to be produced at the time of registration. Without considering the same, the impugned refusal slip was issued by the respondent and hence, it is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the impugned refusal slip dated 09.09.2025 is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to register the petitioner's sale deed dated 09.09.2025, immediately upon re-presentation of the same, in accordance with law.
5/7
11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No cost. 22.10.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa To
1. The Inspector General Of Registration Registration Department, Santhome, Chennai 600 004
2. The District Registrar Registration Departmnt, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District
3. The Sub Registrar, Kelambakkam Sub Registrar Office Kelambakkam Hengalpattu District 6/7
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa 22.10.2025 7/7