Murugan v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 1.Murugan 2.Karthikaesavan .. Petitioners - Vs. - - The Sub Registrar, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli.

.. Respondent 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 order of the respondent in RFL/VAlliyoor/32/2026 dated 24.03.2026 and consequently, direct the respondent to register the sale deed executed by the second petitioner in favour of the first petitioner and release the same within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Subbiah For Respondent : Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader 1/5

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip, dated 24.03.2026.

2. The petitioners claim that their vendor had purchased the said property by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.06.2025. Now when the second petitioner was purchasing the property and when the sale deed was presented for registration, the same was refused to be registered. The reason mentioned in the impugned order is that the survey number in the parent deed differs from that of the one that is consumed in the instant deed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally, when their vendors sold the property, the very same property was given the survey No.513/2N1A2. Subsequently, in view of various other transactions in the same property, even in the vendor's sale deed, it has been described as 513/2N1A2. The very same survey number is only reflected in the second petitioner's sale deed. The learned counsel would submit that it can be seen that the property is one and the same and the boundaries do not differ. As a matter of fact, the patta has been issued in the name of their vendor vide Patta No. 2/5

3727, which reflects the survey No.513/2N1A2. Therefore, the reasons contained in the refusal check slip cannot be sustained.

4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of the respondent would submit that when the earliest parent deed shows a different survey number, the mentioning of a different survey number in the deed presented cannot be countenanced.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6. In this case it is not a totally different survey number but a subdivision mentioned as 513/2N1A2. The same is also supported by Patta No.3727 that is mentioned. The petitioners can effectively demonstrate before the Sub Registrar by mentioning the boundaries and extent that it is the very same property that was purchased by their vendor, is now being conveyed, and the same is contained in the vendor's purchase document also.

7. In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: 3/5

(i) The impugned refusal check slip dated, 24.03.2026 shall stand quashed and the matter stands remanded back to the file of the respondent;

(ii) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of the order, the petitioners shall represent the sale deed and also file an additional affidavit before the respondent that the land in question is one and the same and that the difference in survey number is due to subdivision;

(iii) Upon verification of the same and considering the boundaries and the extent, if there is no other impediment, the document shall be registered.

No costs.

20.04.2026 sji NCC: No To The Sub Registrar, 4/5

Valliyoor, Tirunelveli.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

sji 20.04.2026 5/5