[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sanjay vs The Sub Registrar on 17 February, 2026
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
WP(MD). No.4258 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 17/02/2026
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP(MD). No.4258 of 2026
Sanjay ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Kayathar, Thoothukudi District.
2. Ramachandran,,
S/o.Ramasamy,
No.34/87, Sattanathan Street,
Kazhugamalai, Thoothukudi District.
3. Dhayalan,,
S/o.Ramasamy,
No.34/87, Sattanathan Street,
Kazhugamalai,Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal Slip
No.RFL/Kayathar/9/2025 dated 17.10.2025 passed by the 1st respondent
and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent
to register the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the land
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 03:26:31 pm )
WP(MD). No.4258 of 2026
in S.F.No.115/1B to an extent of 2.24.50 hectares situated in Kayathar
Taluk, Thoothukudi District, within stipulated time frame fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu
For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan for R1
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip
dated 17.10.2025 issued by the 1st respondent and to direct the
respondent to accept the sale deed dated 17.10.2025 presented by the
petitioner for registration.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the official respondent. By consent of
both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the
stage of admission itself. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed
against the respondents 2 and 3, notice is dispensed with.
3. When the petitioner presented the sale deed for registration, the
same was refused to be registered by the 1 st respondent on the ground
that the land in question was already registered in favour of one Cape
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 03:26:31 pm )
Infrastructure in the year 2010 by the vendor of the petitioner and since
several registrations in respect of the subject property, they refused to
register the sale deed. Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is
before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner intends to execute a sale deed now. However, the same came to
be refused to be registered citing the reason that the same land was
registered in favour of one Cape Infrastructure in the year 2010.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions,
would submit that since the subject property was registered in favour of
Cape Infrastructure in the year 2010 by the vendor of the petitioner, the
sale deed came to be refused to be registered.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
7. It appears that in the present case, as rightly contended by both
sides, the petitioner intends to execute a sale deed in favour of one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 03:26:31 pm )
Kaliya on 17.10.2025 to an extent of 2.24.50 Hectares at Kayathar Taluk,
Thoothukudi District, which was originally belonged to the vendor of the
petitioner, who, by virtue of the sale deed dated 13.10.1996 sold the same
to the petitioner herein and since then, the petitioner is in possession and
enjoyment of the same and records were also mutated in the name of the
petitioner's company. While so, when the petitioner intends to sell the
subject land and presented the document for registration, the same came
to be refused on the ground that in the year 2010, the very same subject
property was registered in the name of one Cape Infrastructure through a
power deed by one Kalyanapandi in Doc. No.2599/2010 and the power
deed has also been cancelled in the year 2025. When the petitioner
purchased the property as early as in the year 1996, the petitioner's
vendor sold the same property to one Cape Infrastructure again on
10.12.2010. When the property was sold in favour of the petitioner, the
subsequent sale will not have any legal sanctity in the eye of law and that
will not bind the petitioner any more. In such circumstances, the
petitioner is entitled to sell the said property. As such, as the rightful
owner of the property, the sale deed was presented, however, without any
authority, the vendor has once again sold the property to some third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 03:26:31 pm )
parties in the year 2010 through a power deed. When the subsequent sale
will not have any legal sanctity and will not bind the petitioner, there is
no impediment for the 1st respondent to register the sale deed presented
by the petitioner. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, the
petitioner is directed to represent the sale deed dated 17.10.2025 and
upon such representation, the 1st respondent shall register the same
forthwith, if the same is otherwise in order.
8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No
costs.
17.02.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
TO
1. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Kayathar,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 03:26:31 pm )
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
RR
ORDER
IN
Date : 17/02/2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 03:26:31 pm )
