S.Arumuga Devar v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and W.M.P.(MD)No.2475 of 2026 S.Arumuga Devar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli 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 impugned refusal slip dated 30.12.2025 issued by the respondent vide RFL/ehq;Fndup/90/2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to register the sale deed dated 29.12.2025 presented by the petitioner in respect of the properties comprised 1/6

in Sur.Nos.319/1, 321/3, 334/6A, 334/6B and 246/23, bearing Patta Nos.484, 469 & 491 situated at Singikulam Puthugramam Revenue Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District on within a stipulated time period in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate

O R D E R

Challenge has been made against the impugned refusal slip issued by the respondent dated 30.12.2025.

2.By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner intending to purchase the subject properties from his vendor through a power agent, had presented the document before the respondent for registration. The same came to be refused by the respondent, citing the reason that the share of the petitioner's vendor had already been sold by the other share holders and 2/6

relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the subject properties are the ancestral properties of the petitioner's vendor Lalithameenakshi Ammal @ Lalitha Subramanian, however, no partition was effected and the share holders were enjoying their shares of the properties. While that being so, the said Lalithameenakshi Ammal executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Sivanupandian and from the said power agent, the petitioner intends to purchase the property. However, the subject properties which is a larger extent of land has been sold by the other share holders from 1982 to 2010. Hence, the respondents are not in a position to register the sale deed.

5.Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

6.In the present case, admittedly, the property is an ancestral property, whereas no partition has been effected by the legal heirs. However, it is the contention of the respondent that the subject 3/6

properties had been sold from 1982 to 2010 through various sale deeds. Hence, the right of the petitioner can be decided only before the Civil Court. Therefore, the respondent rightly refused to register the sale deed, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. I do not find any error in the impugned order of the respondent.

7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.02.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR 4/6

To The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

MR 05.02.2026 6/6