R.Yogaraja v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.316 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD).No.312 of 2026 B.Yogaraja ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Nagamalai Pudukkottai, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Madurai District.

... Respondents 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 impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number : RFL / Nagamalai Pudukkottai / 10 / 2025, issued by the first respondent dated 19.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the first respondent to register the Mortgage Deed dated 19.11.2025 presented by the petitioner within time frame as fixed by this Court.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Haron Rasheed For R-1 : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number : RFL / Nagamalai Pudukkottai / 10 / 2025, issued by the first respondent dated 19.11.2025 and consequently to direct the first respondent to register the Mortgage Deed dated 19.11.2025 presented by the petitioner within time frame as fixed by this Court.

2. Mr.M.Linga Durai, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.A.Albert James, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for the second respondent.

3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2/6

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the subject property on 02.05.2018. According to him, the petitioner was working as an agent in Neomax Company. In this regard, an FIR in Crime No.3 of 2023 came to be registered against all the Directors of the said Company, including the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 78th accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner purchased the subject property in his name and in the name of his wife. Owing to financial difficulties, the petitioner and his wife decided to borrow a loan of Rs.41,00,000/- from one Shanmuga Vignesh by mortgaging the subject property.

When the Mortgage Deed was presented for registration, the first respondent refused to register the same by issuing the impugned Refusal Check Slip, stating that the petitioner should obtain a No Objection Certificate from the second respondent. The refusal was based on the communication issued by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 26.03.2024, directing the Sub Registrar not to register any document in respect of the subject property. It is contended that the second respondent has no authority to restrain registration of the property without any order from the competent Court and therefore, the impugned refusal check slip is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the above crime and was subsequently released on bail. It is further submitted that the second respondent suspects that the subject property was purchased from the proceeds of crime and that the alleged offence involves collection of money from several depositors. Therefore, based on the instructions issued by the second respondent, the first respondent rightly refused registration of the document.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side. It is evident from the records that the petitioner, along with the Directors of Neomax Company, is alleged to have collected money from depositors, involving a total amount of approximately Rs.7,500 Crores. The petitioner is arrayed as the 78th accused in the said crime. Though he has been released on bail, the proceedings for cancellation of bail are stated to be pending.

7. It is also admitted that the subject property was purchased subsequent to the commencement of the alleged offences. Under such 4/6

circumstances, the second respondent has issued communication directing the first respondent not to register any document relating to the subject property, considering the gravity of the allegations and the magnitude of the financial fraud involved.

8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No TSG To 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Nagamalai Pudukkottai, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Madurai District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

TSG W.P.(MD)No.316 of 2026 08.01.2026 6/6