Murugan M v. The Sub-Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 23.03.2026

CORAM

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

1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar Keelarajakularaman Virudhunagar District.

2.Muthuramalingam ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No.143/2025 dated 04.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the property situate in R.S.No. 1235/1A1A1B and Rs.No.1236/1A1A2, Melarajakularaman Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, without reference to the protest of respondent No.2 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.Y.Prakash For R1 :Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader For R2 :Mr.M.Antony Rajadurai for M/s.Roy and Roy Association

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.07.2025.

2.By the said order, that is passed pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P(MD)No.12796 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 with reference to the sale deed presented by the writ petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Registrar, Keelarajakularaman and an order was passed that both parties are tracing title through two different set of deeds and all the said deeds are finding in the encumbrance with reference to the said property and ultimately, without any decision with reference to refusing or registration of the document, both parties are relegated to the civil Court. 3.I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent

4.Upon perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that originally the property belonged to four children of one Pethiah Thevar @ Kathiresha Thevar. They had sold the property by a registered document bearing No. 645/1990 to one Premavathi Nachiyar. The said Premavathi Nachiyar conveyed the property to one Palanichamy by registered sale deed No. 571/1995. The said Palanichamy settled the property to one Rohith by registered settlement deed bearing No.365/2018. The said Rohith sold the said property to one Murugan by document No.817/2024. The said Murugan who is the purchaser of the property, has now presented the document for sale, the same was refused to register, for which, the present writ petition is filed.

5.Similarly, as far as the second respondent is concerned, his father viz., late Kanthiah Thevar is said to have purchased the property by a Court auction sale and the second respondent has inherited the property from him. Even the document with reference to the Court auction sale also finds place in the encumbrance certificate of the property. 6.After considering the same, it is clear that the claim of the second respondent is with reference to the title. That question was rightly decided by the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar cannot go into the questions of title

and any party aggrieved only has to approach the civil Court. But however, the document presented by the petitioner in the mean while cannot be left without passing any order. It will be open for the second respondent or any parties claiming through him to approach the competent civil Court, for such relief as may be prayed for. In the meanwhile, the document presented by the petitioner shall be registered by the first respondent, if there is no other impediment.

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

23.03.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns To 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar Keelarajakularaman Virudhunagar District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Ns 23.03.2026