R.Ravichandran Vs the Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

R.Ravichandran Vs the Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Refusal Check Slip dated 23.05.2025 set aside; respondent (Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri West) directed to conduct an enquiry after notice to the petitioner and the plaintiffs Jeyavel, Balaji and Durai, and thereafter take a decision on registration of the Sale Deed, within four weeks; no costs awarded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Refusal Check Slip dated 23.05.2025 issued by the Sub Registrar refusing registration of the Sale Deed dated 23.05.2025 is illegal and unsustainable and liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

If the respondent conducts an enquiry, the actual position will come to light, on the basis of which the respondent can proceed further; accordingly, the impugned refusal slip is liable to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the plaintiffs viz., Jeyavel, Balaji and Durai, and thereafter take a decision with regard to registration of the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner, completing the exercise within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.; decided 17.10.2025). The petitioner, R.Ravichandran, challenged the Refusal Check Slip (Refusal No. RFL/ DHARMAPURI WEST / 54/ 2025 dated 23.05.2025) by which the Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri West refused registration of a Sale Deed dated 23.05.2025 executed in favour of one Sivan, on the ground that a dispute over the subject properties had been settled before the Lok Adalath by way of Compromise Decree allotting Acre 2.15 cents to the plaintiffs, and that registration required compliance with that condition or the plaintiffs' consent. The Court held that if the respondent conducted an enquiry the actual position would come to light, on which basis it could proceed further, and that the impugned refusal slip was therefore liable to be set aside. The Court set aside the refusal slip and directed the respondent to conduct an enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner and the plaintiffs viz., Jeyavel, Balaji and Durai, and thereafter take a decision on registration of the Sale Deed, to be completed within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.

W.P.No.39499 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 17.10.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

W.P.No.39499 of 2025

R.Ravichandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri West, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondent

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check slip in Refusal number RFL/ DHARMAPURI WEST / 54/ 2025 dated 23.05.2025 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and further direct the respondent to admit and register the Sale deed dated 23.05.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondent : Mr.P.Harish, Government Advocate

1/6

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

W.P.No.39499 of 2025

ORDER

Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf

of the respondent. With consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken

up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Refusal Check Slip dated 23.05.2025 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable

and further direct the respondent to admit and register the Sale deed dated 23.05.2025.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the subject properties originally belong to the petitioner's father, who acquired the same by way of inheritance. Thereafter, the petitioner's father settled the same in favour of his mother by way of Settlement Deed dated 31.03.2022 and from the date of Settlement, the petitioner's mother

was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother settled the subject properties in favour of the petitioner vide the Settlement Deed dated 19.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner

2/6

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

W.P.No.39499 of 2025

decided to sell a portion of the property to one Sivan and executed a Sale Deed dated 23.05.2025 in his favour. When the same was presented for registration before the Respondent, the said Authority refused to register the same vide the impugned Check Slip dated 23.05.2025, stating that the dispute regarding the subject properties has been settled before the Lok Adalath by way of Compromise Decree and it has been agreed to give Acre 2.15 cents to the Plaintiffs, but without fulfilling the condition and without the consent of the plaintiffs, executing the Sale Deed deems to be the contempt of Court and the property could be registered only after complying with the condition, to get the plaintiff's share registered as mentioned in the compromise decree or get consent to the plaintiff to register the document. It is further contended that in the Lok Adalat Settlement Memo, Acre 2.15 cents was allotted to the share of the plaintiff out of Acre 6.75 cents and Acre 10.00 cents was alloted to his father Rajagopal. In S.No.180/2C, Acre 2.65 cents was allotted to the share of his father Rajagopal and that the petitioner is only selling a portion of the property measuring Acre 0.90 cents, which is no way connected the share of the plaintiff. Despite the said fact being explained

3/6

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

W.P.No.39499 of 2025

by the petitioner before the respondent in person, the respondent refused to register the Sale Deed. Hence, this petition.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent

would submit that without complying with the decree of Compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat, by the petitioner, they are not in position to register the Sale Deed.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

without conducting enquiry they refused the register the Sale Deed. Had the enquiry been conducted by the respondent , the plaintiffs in the suit would have agreed for the execution of Sale Deed by the petitioner in favour of the 3^rd parties

Heard both sides. Perused the records.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the

submissions made, this Court is of the view that if the respondent conduct

4/6

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

W.P.No.39499 of 2025

the enquiry, definitely the actual position will come into light on the basis of which, the respondent can proceed further. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned refusal slip is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondent is directed to

conduct the enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the plaintiffs viz., Jeyavel, Balaji and Durai and thereafter take decision with regard to the registration of the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

17.10.2025

arr

To

The Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri West, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

5/6

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

W.P.No.39499 of 2025

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

arr

W.P.No.39499 of 2025

17.10.2025

6/6

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