Allowed

N.Loganathan v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC11 Jun 2024WP/5807/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sub-Registrar refused registration of an agreement for sale claiming the property was already dealt with in other sale deeds. The Court held that registering authorities have no duty to investigate title and cannot refuse registration; quashed the refusal checkslip and directed registration.

What did the court decide?

Refusal checkslip dated 25.11.2021 quashed; respondent directed to register and release the Agreement for Sale dated 25.11.2021 within ten days. No costs.

N.Loganathan Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.5807 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP.No.5807 of 2022

¶7

1.N.Loganathan 2.R.Padmini 3.N.Ramasamy 4.N.Kalyanakumar .. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Sub - Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar Cheyyur, Cheyyur Taluk Chengalpattu District .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order dated 25.11.2021 bearing refusal No.RFL/Cheyyur/126/2021 passed by the respondent, quash the same and to direct the respondent to receive, register and release the Agreement for Sale dated 25.11.2021 presented by the Petitioners.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murali

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG assisted by Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Challenge has been made as against the refusal checkslip dated

¶15

25.11.2021 issued by the respondent in refusing to register the Agreement for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/4

¶17

WP.No.5807 of 2022

¶18

Sale dated 25.11.2021.

¶19

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶20

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

It is relevant to note that in respect of the same survey numbers, document has been registered just prior to the agreement for sale without any demur. Now, the agreement is sought to be registered and the same was refused to be registered on the ground that the property referred in the agreement is already dealt in various other sale deeds. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a large extent is owned by several persons, other persons have already dealt with the document which has been referred in the communication sent by the respondent. Whereas, remaining property is still available which is only sought to be conveyed by entering an agreement.

¶22

At any event, even assuming that the property is subject matter of the property already conveyed as stated by the respondent, it is not their concern.

¶23

It is only the concern of the purchaser who entered into such agreement. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/4

¶25

WP.No.5807 of 2022

¶26

Therefore, when the document is presented, it is not the duty of the registering

¶27

authorities go into the title. Such view of the matter, the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the document.

¶28

Accordingly, the impugned refusal checkslip dated 25.11.2021 stands quashed and the respondent is directed to register the Agreement for Sale dated 25.11.2021 and release the same within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶29

In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶30

11.06.2024

¶31

dhk Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶32

¶33

The Sub - Registrar Office of the Sub Registrar Cheyyur, Cheyyur Taluk Chengalpattu District

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/4

¶36

WP.No.5807 of 2022

¶37

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk

W.P.No.5807 of 2022

11.06.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/4

N.Loganathan v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Loganathan v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Venkatesan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

K.Venkatesan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Rathinam Vs the District Collector

E.P.Palanisamy Vs The Inspector General of Registration

V.Sathish Kumar Vs The Secretary to the Government

K.Ramani alias Sellam Vs The Joint Registrar No.1