[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Madhavan vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 6 January, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
WP No. 31507 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
WP No. 31507 of 2025
K.Madhavan, S/o.Late Kumaravel Mudaliar,
449, Seeyamangalam Pettai Village,
Rajampettai Post, Wallajabad Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai 600 004.
2. The District Registrar, Kancheepuram District.
3. The Sub-Registrar, Wallajabad,
Kancheepuram District.
4. K. Kalaichelvi, W/o Kadirvelu,
138, Karpagavinayakar Koil Street,
Manampathi Village, Kancheepuram District.
5. Padmini @ Vetriselvi, W/o Dhanarajan,
21, Aladi Pillayar Koil Street,
Kancheepruam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
6. N. Senguttuvan,
S/o Late Narayanasamy Mudaliar, 20 AB,
Aladi Pillayar Koil Street, Kancheepuram
Taluk, Kanheepruam District.
..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 in Na.Ka.No. 2298/ A1 / 2025
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 08:35:46 pm )
WP No. 31507 of 2025
passed by the 2nd Respondent confirming the order passed by the 3rd
Respondent in Refusal Check Slip No.RFL / Wallajabad / 9 / 2025 dated
15.05.2025, quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to
register the Sale Deed dated 15.05.2025 executed between the petitioner and
Respondents 4, 5 and 6 at the office of the 3rd Respondent.
For Petitioner: Mr.K.V.Babu
For Respondents: Mr. U.Baranidharan, Spl.G.P. for R1 to R3
ORDER
A suit for partition was filed by Kalaiselvi, Padmini @ Vetriselvi and
N.Senguttuvan in O.S.No.132 of 1988. The final decree in the said suit was
issued on 27.09.2022 allotting the A schedule property, as per the Advocate
Commissioner's report, to the plaintiffs towards their 1/4th share. Pursuant
thereto, the said plaintiffs/respondents 4 to 6 herein executed a sale deed in
favour of the petitioner. Upon presentation thereof for registration, the
impugned refusal check slip was issued.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the final
decree and thereafter to the impugned order. He points out that the request for
registration was declined by referring to the earlier registrations by the
defendants in the partition suit. He submits that the said alienations pertain to
the respective defendant’s share in the property and not to the share purchased
by the petitioner under sale deed dated 15.05.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 08:35:46 pm )
3. Notice was ordered to the private respondents herein. Notice was
served on the sixth respondent. As regards the fourth respondent, notice was
returned with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’ and, as regards the sixth respondent,
notice was returned unserved with the endorsement “no such person”. These
respondents are evidently the executants of sale deed sated 15.05.2025. As such,
the said persons cannot object to the petitioner's request for registration.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the request for
registration was declined on account of the previous registered conveyances
relating to the property. He relies on the judgment dated 28.10.2025 in
W.P.No.26872 of 2025, Ramathal and three others v. The Sub-Registrar, 2025 :
MHC : 2667 to contend that a person aggrieved by an order under Section 71 of
the Registration Act, 1908 should lodge an appeal under Section 72 before the
appellate authority and, if aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority,
should file a suit under Section 77.
5. In the case at hand, the conveyance in favour of the petitioner has been
effected by the private respondents pursuant to the final decree dated
27.09.2022 in I.A.No.1127 of 1993 in O.S.No.132 of 1988. In these
circumstances, the registering officer should not have declined registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 08:35:46 pm )
merely on the basis that sale deeds were executed in respect of shares in survey
numbers forming part of sale deed dated 15.05.2025.
6. For reasons set out above, the impugned order of refusal cannot be
sustained and is hereby set aside. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for
reconsideration by the Sub-Registrar. Subject to fulfilment of other
requirements in respect of registration, such as remittance of requisite stamp
duty and registration fees, the registering officer is directed to take necessary
steps for registration within two weeks from the date of re-presentation of the
relevant sale deed.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. There will be
no order as to costs.
06-01-2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kj
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai 600 004.
2.The District Registrar, Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 08:35:46 pm )
3. The Sub-Registrar, Wallajabad,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 08:35:46 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
Kj
06-01-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 08:35:46 pm )
