R.Ravichandran v. The Sub Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 17.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY R.Ravichandran ...
Petitioner Vs.
The Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri West, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
...
Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check slip in Refusal number RFL/ DHARMAPURI WEST / 54/ 2025 dated 23.05.2025 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and further direct the respondent to admit and register the Sale deed dated 23.05.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondent : Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate 1/6
ORDER
Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Refusal Check Slip dated 23.05.2025 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and further direct the respondent to admit and register the Sale deed dated 23.05.2025.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the subject properties originally belong to the petitioner's father, who acquired the same by way of inheritance. Thereafter, the petitioner's father settled the same in favour of his mother by way of Settlement Deed dated 31.03.2022 and from the date of Settlement, the petitioner's mother was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother settled the subject properties in favour of the petitioner vide the Settlement Deed dated 19.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner 2/6
decided to sell a portion of the property to one Sivan and executed a Sale Deed dated 23.05.2025 in his favour. When the same was presented for registration before the Respondent, the said Authority refused to register the same vide the impugned Check Slip dated 23.05.2025, stating that the dispute regarding the subject properties has been settled before the Lok Adalath by way of Compromise Decree and it has been agreed to give Acre 2.15 cents to the Plaintiffs, but without fulfilling the condition and without the consent of the plaintiffs, executing the Sale Deed deems to be the contempt of Court and the property could be registered only after complying with the condition, to get the plaintiff's share registered as mentioned in the compromise decree or get consent to the plaintiff to register the document.
It is further contended that in the Lok Adalat Settlement Memo, Acre 2.15 cents was allotted to the share of the plaintiff out of Acre 6.75 cents and Acre 10.00 cents was alloted to his father Rajagopal. In S.No.180/2C, Acre 2.65 cents was allotted to the share of his father Rajagopal and that the petitioner is only selling a portion of the property measuring Acre 0.90 cents, which is no way connected the share of the plaintiff.
by the petitioner before the respondent in person, the respondent refused to register the Sale Deed. Hence, this petition.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent would submit that without complying with the decree of Compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat, by the petitioner, they are not in position to register the Sale Deed.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without conducting enquiry they refused the register the Sale Deed. Had the enquiry been conducted by the respondent , the plaintiffs in the suit would have agreed for the execution of Sale Deed by the petitioner in favour of the 3rd parties
6. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made, this Court is of the view that if the respondent conduct 4/6
the enquiry, definitely the actual position will come into light on the basis of which, the respondent can proceed further. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned refusal slip is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondent is directed to conduct the enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the plaintiffs viz., Jeyavel, Balaji and Durai and thereafter take decision with regard to the registration of the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 17.10.2025 arr To The Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri West, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., arr W.P.No.
39499 of 2025 17.10.2025 6/6