Tamilselvi v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 06.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.7328 of 2026 Tamilselvi ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Kalayarkoil Taluk, Sivagangai District.

...Respondent

Writ Petitions are 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 in RFL/Kalaiyarkovi/25/2026 dated 17.03.2026 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and further directing the respondent to register the release deed as presented by the petitioner in respect of the properties in S.No.209.3A and 209/4 situated in Muthur VillageKalaiyarovil Taluk, Sivagangai District, measuring to an extent of 3.43 acres within a time limit as may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents :Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.03.2026.

2.When the petitioner presented the document for registration, the same was refused to be registered on different grounds. The petitioner claims to be the wife of late Duraisingam. Duraisingham is the original owner of the schedule property and after his death, she is executing the release deed of her share in favour of her son. The same is refused to be registered.

3.On a perusal of the refusal check slip, it can be seen that the property which is conveyed is in two survey numbers. As far as Survey No. 209/4 is concerned, it can be seen that the property originally belonged to one Vedham. The owner sold the property vide the Document No.549 of 1991 to Mariam Beevi. In the year 2010, the petitioner's husband has purchased the same from Mariam Beevi vide document, dated 24.10.2010. However, the objection by the Sub-Register is that Vedham had also alienated the same extent to one Saraswati by document No.470 of 1998. Thus, it can be seen that if at all an objection relating to double sale has to be made, it should have been made while registering the Document No.470

of 1998 and the petitioner's document cannot be refused to be registered on the said ground.

4.As far as Survey No.209/3 is concerned, it is stated that originally it belonged to three persons namely, Loourdu, Swaminathan and Arulraj. The said Loourdu and Saminathan, jointly sold 83 cents to one Mariam Beevi by sale deed bearing Document No.559 of 1991, from whom the petitioner's husband is said to have purchased the said 83 cents. While the remaining 83 cents were there, the other shareholder viz., Arulraj, instead of selling his remaining 83 cents alone, had sold the entire extent of 1 acre 68 cents to the aforesaid Saraswati by a document bearing No.443 of 1998. In any event, it can be seen that the said Saraswathi had further sold the property to one GCL Engineering Engineering Pvt Ltd., vide document dated 14.08.2006 The said GCL Company had further alienated the said extends to three different persons vide document bearing No.1467 of 2010. From the said persons, again the petitioner's husband had purchased the property on 01.10.2000. Thus, on a careful perusal of the refusals check slip, the reasons contained therein are unsustainable.

5. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms: (i)the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.03.2026 shall stand

quashed.

(ii)The petitioner is directed to re-present the document within two weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order. (iii)Upon such re-presentation, the document shall be registered, if there is no other impediment.

(iv)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

06.04.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns To The Sub Registrar, Kalayarkoil Taluk, Sivagangai District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Ns and W.M.P(MD)No.7328 of 2026 06.04.2026