Mrs. Meena Sundar v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 10.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Meena Sundar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Thirukovilur - 605 757.
3.Sundaram ... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 10.10.2025 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.10.2025. For Petitioner : Ms.S.Balamuki For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader 1/6
ORDER
The relief sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 10.10.2025 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.10.2025.
2. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's late father has several self-acquired properties, registered before the second respondent. After his demise, the properties were partitioned between the petitioner and his brother. When the petitioner decided to sell his share of properties to one Mr.Kavin and presented the sale deed before the second respondent for registration. However, the second respondent refused to register the same citing the reason that an objection was raised by the third respondent. Therefore, petitioner made a 2/6
representation dated 16.10.2025, before the second respondent, seeking to register the sale deed. But, the said representation was not considered, as on date. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that in the present case, the third respondent has raised an objection to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner. Hence, the second respondent is not in a position to register the same. However, he would submit that in the event, the petitioner has re-presented the sale deed, due notice will be issued to the petitioner as well as the third respondent and thereafter, the matter will be decided.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3/6
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained a token on 10.10.2025 for the purpose of registration of the sale deed. When the petitioner made an attempt to present the sale deed, physically, the second respondent refused to register the same citing the reason that an objection was received from the third respondent. Under these circumstances, the second respondent ought to have issued notice to the petitioner as well as the third respondent and decided the matter, whether to register the sale deed or not. But, in the case on hand, the second respondent has not issued notice to both the parties and not conducted an enquiry.
7. In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner to represent the sale deed once again to the second respondent. On such receipt, the second respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as the third respondent and decide the matter on the issue of registration of sale deed, in the event the third respondent has filed any objection with proper format along with appropriate stamp duty. 4/6
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
10.11.2025 vm Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Thirukovilur - 605 757.
5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., vm 10.11.2025 6/6