K.C.Jayakumar v. The Sub Registrar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 05.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY & W.M.P.No.46864 of 2025 K.C.Jayakumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar, Kelambakkam Chennai.
2. N.Kuppusamy
3. K.Venkatesan
4. K.Moorthy ... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 to 4, from alienating the above property in S.No.189/2 extent 71 cents sitauted at Pudupakkam village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpet District by considering the representation dated 15.09.2025 by the 1st respondent within the time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court 1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasekaran For Respondent : Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP for R1
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 2 to 4, from alienating the subject property by considering the representation dated 15.09.2025 by the 1st respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner had decided to purchase the subject property, which belongs to the respondents 2 to 4 for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.1,34,90,000/-. On 16.05.2007, a sale agreement was executed between the parties and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.81,00,000/- as advance to the respondents 2 to 4. Thereafter, when the petitioner tried to settle the entire amount to the respondents 2 to 4, they had now shown any interest and now, they are trying to alienate the subject property. Under these circumstances, the protest petition was filed by the 2/6
petitioner in the form of representation on 15.09.2025. However, the said representation was not at all considered and disposed of by the 1st respondent till date. Hence, this petition.
3. In reply, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that though the petitioner had filed a representation on 15.09.2025 in the form of protest petition, the same was not file with proper stamp duty. Hence, the 1st respondent is not in a position to consider the said representation. Thus, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also perused the entire materials available on record.
5. In the case on hand, initially, the petitioner had decided to purchase the subject property, which belongs to the respondents 2 to 4 for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.1,34,90,000/-. On 16.05.2007, a sale agreement was executed between the parties and the 3/6
petitioner paid a sum of Rs.81,00,000/- as advance to the respondents 2 to 4. Thereafter, when the petitioner tried to settle the remaining amount to the respondents 2 to 4, they had now shown any interest and now, they are trying to alienate the subject property. Under these circumstances, the representation dated 15.09.2025 was filed by the petitioner in the form of protest petition. However, the said representation was not at all considered and disposed of by the 1st respondent till date.
6. According to the respondent, the said protest petition was filed by the petitioner without paying the necessary stamp duty and hence, the 1st respondent is not in position to dispose of the same. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to pay the necessary stamp duty to the 1st respondent. Upon such payment, the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the concerned parties and conduct enquiry and thereafter, take appropriate decision, with regard to the registration of sale deed, if any, presented by the respondents 2 to 4, in accordance with law. 4/6
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 05.11.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa To The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar, Kelambakkam Chennai.
5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa & W.M.P.No.46864 of 2025 05.11.2025 6/6