M.Balasubramaian v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 02.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Viralimalai, Pudukkottai District.

2. Prithika

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Respondent proceedings in his Refusal slip in RFL/Viralimalai/44/2026 dated 17.03.2026 is illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to Register the Sale deed dated 17.03.2026 within stipulated time fixed by this Honble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Anbarasan For R1 :Mr.R.Parthiban Government Advocate For R2 : No Appearance

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Respondent proceedings in his Refusal slip in RFL/Viralimalai/44/2026 dated 17.03.2026 is illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to Register the Sale deed dated 17.03.2026 within stipulated time fixed by this Honble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and upon perusing the materials available on record, it is seen that originally one Arulantham was the owner of the property in question. He had appointed one Baskar as his Power of Attorney Agent. Through the said Power Agent, the petitioner purchased the property by a registered

Sale Deed dated 13.08.2002 bearing Document No.1495 of 2002. On the strength of the said Sale Deed, the petitioner has now presented a further Sale Deed seeking to alienate the property belonging to him. However, registration of the same has been refused on the ground that subsequently the said Baskar had conveyed the very same property in favour of one Prithika under Document No.1359 of 2009 and in favour of one Ganesan under Document No.4265 of 2008. Aggrieved by the said refusal, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Sub-Registrar would submit that in view of the existence of double entries in respect of both the plots, registration of the document has been refused. Though notice has been served on the private respondent/she has not chosen to appear before this Court and contest the matter.

4. This Court has already held that, in cases involving double entries, particularly when the petitioner's document is prior in point of time, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of a subsequently presented document on that ground alone.

5. In view thereof, the reasoning contained in the impugned refusal check slip cannot be sustained.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered on the following terms:- i. The impugned refusal dated 17.03.2026 shall stand set aside. ii. Within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of the order, the petitioner can represent the document upon which the same shall be registered, if there is no other impediment.

iii. No cost.

02.06.2026 rgm

To The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Viralimalai, Pudukkottai District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

rgm 02.06.2026