Ponrajan v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Ponrajan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Registrar, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Sub Registrar, Watrap Sub Registrar Office, Virudhunagar District.
... 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 records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein in his refusal check slip in refusal number RFL/Watrap/9/2025 dated 30.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the second respondent herein to register the Sale Deed (TP/234851620/2025) with respect to the property comprised in S.No. 391/2, to an extent of 4.63.50 Hectares (11.45 Acres) in Kansapuram Village, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District and release the same.
1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vashik Ali For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.Sale deed dated 30.09.2025 was executed in favour of the writ petitioner. Document was presented for registration. Citing the reasons set out in the impugned refusal check slip, registration was refused. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. 3.The registering authority had referred to O.S.No.84 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilluputhur. It is a suit for specific performance. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The suit was filed by the writ petitioner's vendors. The Lok Adalat award was passed in their favour. Thereafter, sale deed was executed in their favour. It was registered as Document No.1234/2022. 2/5
4.I fail to understand as to why on this ground the registering authority declined to register the document. In fact, the writ petitioner's vendors / executants of the impugned sale deed derive their title only by the virtue of their aforesaid Lok Adalat passed in the said suit. 5.The registering authority has also referred to O.S.No.135 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur. It is a suit for partition. The predecessors in title are figuring as the defendants in the suit. But the petition mentioned property was deleted from the schedule by subsequent amendment. Therefore, pendency of the said partition suit also cannot be a ground for rejection.
6.Likewise, there is also reference to Crime No.19 of 2023 on the file of District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. Criminal case was lodged by the sister of Thirumalai Kumar, who was the defendant in the O.S.No. 84 of 2022. A mere registration of an FIR, without anything more, cannot be a ground for rejection. It is also noted that the patta stands in the name of the executants of the sale deed. Copy of the patta has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. Looked at from any angle, none of 3/5
the reasons are sound. The impugned refusal check slip is quashed. The parties are given liberty to re-present the document. It shall be registered and released subject to the fulfilment of the other usual formalities. 7.This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 17.10.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To 1.The District Registrar, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Sub Registrar, Watrap Sub Registrar Office, Virudhunagar District.
4/5
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA 17.10.2025 5/5