← Library
Madras High CourtWP/43894/2025disposed of

Karunanidhi v. The Inspector General Of Registration

2025-11-17Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Karunanidhi, S/o.Mr.Chinnathambi, Muthanampatty, Kadayampatti Post, Nadupatti, Omalur, Salem District 636 351.

Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Inspector General Of Registration, Registration Department, Government Of Tamil Nadu, Santhome, Chennai 600 004.

2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Kadaiyapatti, Salem District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned refusal order dated 14.10.2025 in Refusal No. RFL/Kadayampatti/41/2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent and quash the same,

consequently direct the 2 nd respondent to register the sale deed of the petitioner dated 29.09.2025 for its registration forthwith. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for Mr.M.R.Elavarasan For Respondent:

Mr.M.s.Arasakumar Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned refusal order dated 14.10.2025 in Refusal No. RFL/Kadayampatti/41/2025, passed by the 2 nd respondent.

2.Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owns a property in Survey No.561/4 to an extent of 1.76 acres

situated at Kanavaiputhur Village, Kadayampatti Taluk, Salem District and the same was acquired by the petitioner through unregistered Will dated 09.03.1993 executed by his father. While so, now the petitioner intend to sell the aforesaid property due to family circumstances and executed a sale deed dated 29.09.2025 nd and presented the same for registration on 14.10.2025. However, the 2 respondent refused to register the same stating that the Will was not registered and the petitioner has to probate the Will.

4.He would further submit that an unregistered Will is not a bar for nd respondent can very well conduct an enquiry registration of property and the 2 with other legal heirs of the petitioner's father regarding the Will and the nd respondent.

petitioner has also furnished the legal heir certificate before the 2 nd respondent issued the However, without conducting any enquiry the 2 impugned refusal check slip. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 5.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that an un-registered Will is not a bar for registration of the

property since the property situated at Salem District i.e other than the Metropolitan City. Since the genuineness of the Will is not known, the 2 nd respondent would have asked the petitioner to probate the Will. Further, he prayed to direct the 2 nd respondent to conduct enquiry with the other legal heirs based on the legal heir certificate produced by the petitioner. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records.

7.Considering the submissions made by either parties, it is evident that the 2 nd respondent refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on the ground that the Will dated 09.03.1993, through which the petitioner acquired the subject property is an un-registered Will and the petitioner needs to probate the Will. However, upon hearing, this Court is of the view that, the law is settled to an extent that the probation of Will is not required when it was executed other than the Metropolitan City and therefore, the un-registered Will is not a bar for

registration of the property. Further, if the 2 nd respondent had any doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will, he could have issued notice to other legal heirs of the petitioner's father based on the legal heir certificate furnished by the petitioner and conducted an enquiry. However, the 2 nd respondent has failed to do such exercise and issued a refusal check slip, which is not a right course. Thus, the impugned refusal check slip is liable to be set aside. 8.Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 14.10.2025 is set aside and this Court directs the petitioner to re-present the sale deed 29.09.2025 before the 2 nd respondent. Once it is re-presented, the 2 nd respondent is directed to issue notice to the other legal heirs of the petitioner's father based on the legal heirs certificate produced by the petitioner, if he has any doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will dated 09.03.1993. After conducting an enquiry, the 2 nd respondent is directed to take a decision regarding the registration of the sale deed dated 29.09.2025.

9.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 17-11-2025 rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The Inspector General Of Registration, Registration Department, Government Of Tamil Nadu, Santhome, Chennai 600004.

2.The Sub-Registrar Sub-Registrar Office, Kadaiyapatti, Salem District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

rst 17-11-2025