M.Rajiv v. The Sub Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 07.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.No.37611 of 2025 Mr.M.Rajiv ... Petitioner ..Vs..
The Sub Registrar, Office of The Sub Registrar, Oothangarai, Krishnagiri District.
... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records relating to the Refusal Order bearing reference No. RFL / Oothangarai/ 133/ 2025 dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Respondent and quash the same as null and void , and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 13.06.2025 executed in favour of the Petitioner,on being satisfied with the prescribed requirements, within a time to be fixed by this Court.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jayachitra For Respondent : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Refusal Order bearing reference No. RFL/Oothangarai/133/2025 dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Respondent and quash the same as null and void and consequently direct the respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 13.06.2025 executed in favour of the Petitioner on being satisfied with the prescribed requirements, within a time to be fixed by this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when the petitioner presented the Sale Deed dated 13.06.2025 before the respondent, without issuing notice to the petitioner and without hearing the parties concerned, the same was refused vide the 2/6
impugned order dated 27.06.2025, on the ground that the objection was raised by one Dhanapal. Hence, this petition.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would fairly accepted the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for appropriate orders.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. A perusal of the refusal order dated 27.06.2025 shows that since one Dhanapal filed injunction petition with respect to the subject property in I.A.No.71/2022 and the same is pending, the Sale Deed was rejected. The filing of injunction petition will not restrain the authorities concerned from registering the Sale Deed. That apart, the respondent to have issued notice to the petitioner and the parties concerned before passing the refusal order. But the respondent without application of mind simply rejected the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner. Therefore, the refusal order is liable to be set aside. 3/6
7. Accordingly, the refusal order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to take the Sale Deed on record, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to the parties concerned and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
07.10.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No arr To 4/6
The Sub Registrar, Office of The Sub Registrar, Oothangarai, Krishnagiri District.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
arr 5/6
W.P.No.37611 of 2025 07.10.2025 6/6
7/6