Dhanasekaran v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR 1.Dhanasekaran 2.Gandhimathi 3.Palanikumaran 4.Rathnavathi 5.Rathinakumar 6.Maruthupandian .. Petitioners - Vs. - 1.The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, Muthugulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
4.Lakshmi 5.Devi .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned refusal slip in Refusal No.RFL/Muthukulathoor/29/2026 dated 30.03.2026 passed by the second respondent and quash the same consequently direct the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 30.03.2026 presented by the petitioner. 1/5
For Petitioners : Mr. B. Mahendrarajan For Respondents : Mr. A. Baskaran Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr. R. Shankarganesh for R4 & R5
ORDER
The petitioners challenge the refusal check slip bearing Refusal No. RFL/Muthukulathoor/29/2026 dated 30.03.2026 issued by the second respondent.
2. The petitioners claim that their grandfather was the owner of the properties comprised in Survey No. 328/2 measuring 22.05 ares, Survey No. 328/3 measuring 29 ares, and Survey No. 328/6 measuring 33.5 ares, and that the patta also stands in the name of their grandfather. The petitioners presented a sale deed executed in favour of the purchaser in respect of the said properties along with all relevant documents for registration. However, respondents 4 and 5 raised objections to the registration of the document, claiming that they are also joint owners of the property. Based on such objections, the impugned refusal check slip came to be issued.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 2/5
4. In identical circumstances, this Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 4571 of 2025 dated 17.02.2025, has held that mere pendency of a suit or mere objections raised by third parties cannot be a ground for refusal to register a document, unless there is a restraint order passed by a competent Civil Court. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no restraint order passed by any competent Civil Court, and there is also no suit pending in respect of the subject property. Therefore, refusal to register the sale deed merely on the basis of objections raised by the private respondents is arbitrary and unsustainable.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned refusal check slip bearing Refusal No. RFL/Muthukulathoor/29/2026 dated 30.03.2026 issued by the second respondent is set aside. The second respondent is directed to register the sale deed dated 30.03.2026, if it is otherwise in order. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
10.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No 3/5
NCC : Yes/No sji 4/5
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
sji To 1.The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, Muthugulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
10.04.2026 5/5