Pradheeban v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Pradheeban ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Karur, Karur District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Kulithalai, Karur District.

3.Karthick ... 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 of the impugned Refusal Check Slip of Refusal Number: RFL/Fspj;jiy/19/2026 dated 10.02.2026 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to register the petitioner's sale deed dated 10.02.2026. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

Challenge has been made against the refusal check slip issued by the second respondent dated 10.02.2026. 2.By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.Since no adverse orders are passed against the third respondent, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner intending to purchase a property from the third respondent, presented the document before the second respondent for registration. The same came to be refused by the second respondent, citing the reason that a mortgage deed has been registered with regard to the subject property. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

2/6

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier the third respondent had mortgaged the property with HDB Financial Services Limited. Due to default in payment, a dishonour cheque case came to be filed by the Bank in S.T.C.Nos.771 of 2018 & 120 of 2019. However, the third respondent settled the entire loan and recording the same, judgments have been passed in the aforesaid cases dated 22.09.2023 and 18.10.2023, respectively. The HDB bank has not intimated the official respondents about the discharge of the loan and only under these circumstances, the impugned refusal check slip came to be issued. 6.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would fairly admit the fact that the loan has been settled but he would submit that the said fact has not been brought to the knowledge of the official respondents. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 7.Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3/6

8.Admittedly, the entire loan availed from the HDB Financial Services has been settled by the third respondent and the same has been recorded by the Court below in S.T.C.Nos.771 of 2018 and 120 of 2019 vide judgments dated 22.09.2023 and 18.10.2023. Therefore, there can be no impediment for the second respondent in registering the sale deed presented by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.02.2026, passed by the second respondent is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the second respondent to register the sale deed upon re-presentation of the same, with immediate effect. 9.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

18.02.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR 4/6

To 1.The District Registrar, Karur, Karur District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Kulithalai, Karur District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

MR 18.02.2026 6/6