Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

A.Sodalaimuthu Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
A.Sodalaimuthu Vs The Sub RegistrarA.Sodalaimuthu v. The Sub Registrar

Allowed

A.Sodalaimuthu v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC28 Oct 2025WP(MD)/25964/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sub Registrar refused to register a sale deed executed by a registered power agent because the principals disputed signatures in the life certificate. Holding that Section 34 confines the registrar's enquiry and a life certificate's purpose is only to prove the principal is alive, the court quashed the refusal check slip with undertakings recorded.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip quashed; petitioners permitted to re-present the sale deed for registration, subject to second petitioner's undertaking not to alienate till disposal of O.S.Nos.313-321/2025.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Refusal check slip quashed; petitioners permitted to re-present the sale deed for registration, subject to second petitioner's undertaking not to alienate till disposal of O.S.Nos.313-321/2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the registering authority can refuse to register a document executed by a power agent because the principals dispute their signatures on the life certificate. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The requirement of a life certificate under the Inspector General of Registration's circular is meant only to ensure the principal is alive and to protect purchasers, not to enable the principal to block registration by disputing signatures. The registering officer's enquiry is confined by Section 34 of the Registration Act; he has no power to test the veracity of signatures in a life certificate, and forgery is a matter for prosecution under Sections 82 and 83. Where principals are alive or the power is coupled with interest, refusal is unwarranted. Inter se disputes must be adjudicated by the civil court. Refusal check slip quashed; document permitted to be re-presented for registration.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

1.A.Sodalaimuthu

2.S.Vasugi ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Sub Registrar, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

2.S.Mohammed Ibrahim ... 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 the records on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings of refusal check slip No.RFL/Kariapatti/74/2025, dated 09.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal and null and void and consequently, direct the first respondent to register and return the sale deed presented by the petitioners dated 30.06.2025.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Venkatesh

For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate for R1 : Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi for R2

1/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The respondents 2 & 3 herein executed the power of attorney dated 10.08.2016 in favour of the first petitioner herein authorizing him to deal with the petition mentioned property. The power of attorney was registered as Document No.2037 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kariyapatti. The power of attorney was one coupled with interest. In fact, stamp duty was also paid accordingly. The second respondent herein had also entered into a sale agreement with the first petitioner. While so, the first petitioner executed the petition mentioned sale deed in favour of the second petitioner and presented the same for registration. The respondents 2 & 3 raised objections. The stand of R2 & R3 is that in the life certificate produced by the first petitioner, they had not affixed their signatures. Citing the said objection, the first respondent declined to register the document and issued the impugned refusal check slip. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

3.The document cancelling the power of attorney was presented on 23.07.2025. The sale deed is dated 03.07.2025. But it was presented on

2/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

09.09.2025. The sale deed had been executed with stamp papers that bear the

date 30.06.2025. The respondents 2 & 3 have in the meanwhile instituted O.S.No.313 to 321 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Judge, Aruppukottai seeking

declaration that the power of attorney executed in favour of the first petitioner is non-est in the eyes of law and is deemed to have been cancelled. Admittedly, the jurisdictional civil Court has not granted any interim order in favour of R2

& R3 herein till date.

4.The respondents 2 & 3 herein have disputed the genuineness of the signatures attributed to them in the life certificate. The question that calls for consideration is whether the registering authority should be restrained from registering the document in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the principals.

5.A Circular was issued on 04.04.2013 by the I.G of Registration wherein it was made mandatory to insist on production of life certificate whenever a power agent executes any document pursuant to the power of attorney executed in his favour. The life certificate must indicate that the principal was alive for a period of thirty days prior to the execution of the document presented for registration. The circular is as follows :

3/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

4/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

5/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

6/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

7/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

The validity of the circular was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 13145 and 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 12788 . The matter in fact went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as there was an ambiguity in the wording of the circular. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after clarifying what the circular should be taken to mean declined to interfere with the order of the Division Bench. Pursuant to the said clarification, the following circular was issued :

8/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

6.A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 in Arihabt Foundations and Housing Limited vs The State of Tamil Nadu made in WP. No.4780 of 2025 held as follows:

“8.In the considered view of this Court, the very insistence of a life certificate is only to ensure that the principal who executed the power is alive. The scope of the life certificate cannot go beyond this. If the principal wants to prevent the agent from dealing with the property pursuant to the power of attorney executed in his favour, the principal has to cancel the power or the principal must approach the competent Court and workout the remedy... This Circular does not have anything to do with an inter se dispute

9/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

between the principal and the agent and this Circular confines itself to find out if the principal is alive on the date of presentation of the document by the agent.”

However, another learned Single Judge of this court in Jayanth Rhenius vs

The District Registrar (W.P(MD)No.8998 of 2025) vide order dated 19.08.2025 dissented from the above view and held as follows :

“The object of the Circular may be to ascertain whether the principal is alive and whether the POA was still subsisting. But while implementing the said Circular it is mandatory to obtain signature of the principal in the life certificate and this would give a genuine expectation to the principal that the agent would come back for getting signature in life certificate and there would not be chance of committing fraud. Hence the interpretation held in the order stated supra is “narrow interpretation”. The impact of the said Circular ought to be considered by assigning “purposive interpretation”. Hence, based on the above circular if the interest of the principal is protected against fraud and if the principal is claiming such protection against fraud, then the same ought to granted to the principal / the petitioner herein.”

7.I have two conflicting opinions before me. Question arises what should

I do ? Should I follow one of the two or make a reference to the Division Bench. After considerable thought and deliberation, I intend to follow what was laid down in Arihabt Foundations and Housing Limited.

10/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

8.Let me spell out my reasons. As per the circular dated 02.02.2013, any

document executed by a power agent and presented for registration should be accompanied by a life certificate containing the photograph of the principal. Such certificate should also be signed by a registered medical practitioner or an officer belonging to Group A Services of the Central or State Government. The life certificate should have been issued within a period of thirty days preceding the date of presentation of the document for registration. If the deed of power of attorney itself had been registered within thirty days immediately preceding the date of registration, then the document need not be accompanied by a life certificate. The Registration Act and the rules framed thereunder do not prescribe such a requirement. It is only through a circular issued by the I.G of Registration, it has become a requirement. The validity of the circular has been upheld. What has not been statutorily directed may not receive an expansive interpretation. A requirement has been introduced and it is enough if it is fulfilled. A careful reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 13145 indicates that the whole idea is to protect innocent purchasers. If the principal dies but on the strength of the power of attorney, document is executed after his demise, it is void as it would convey no title to the purchaser. With utmost respect, I am of the view that the purpose of the circular is not to empower the principal but to protect the

11/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

purchaser. One can take judicial notice of the fact that full consideration is often paid before such power of attorney is executed. To evade stamp duty, the power of attorney deed does not read that it is coupled with interest. But in this case, the document itself indicates that it is one coupled with interest. Such power of attorney cannot be revoked unilaterally. Even the death of the principal will not affect its operation. In such cases, the production of life certificate itself may not be necessary. Since the circular has been upheld by the courts, may be in such cases, leave will have to be obtained for dispensing with the production of the life certificate.

9.The very purpose of filing a life certificate is to ensure that the power agent does not act on the power of attorney even though the principal has passed away. Only to avoid such a situation, the registration department introduced the practice of enclosing the life certificate. Courts should not introduce further requirements than what the circular stipulates. If the certificate has been signed by the official mentioned in the circular, that is the end of the matter as far as the registering authority is concerned. The life certificate must contain the photograph of the principal. As per the format, the signature of the principal should also be there. If these are present, the registering authority must go ahead with the registration and there is no scope

12/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

for further enquiry. As per Section 34 of the Registration Act, the scope of enquiry before the registering officer is confined to finding out whether the document sought to be registered was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. The identity of the persons appearing before the registering authority will have to be satisfied. There is no provision enabling the registering authority to conduct enquiry during the registration process to find out if the signatures found in the life certificate are true and genuine. If a false document has been filed, that would be a matter for prosecution under Sections 82 & 83 of the Act. Even this prosecution can take place only after it is definitively established that the signatures found in the life certificate have been forged.

10.Law does not conceive of a situation when the principal appears before the registering authority and disputes the signature attributed to him in the life certificate. The whole purpose of producing a life certificate is to assure that the principal is very much alive. If the principal himself appears in person, there is no need for a life certificate at all. If the authority is satisfied that the principal is alive, the question of holding further enquiry does not arise. Need to hold enquiry will arise only if there is suspicion that the principal is no more. There could be cases as in Jayanth Rhenius where the principal denies

13/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

the genuineness of the signature attributed to him in the life certificate. This issue cannot be decided by the registering authority. It is only the forensic expert who can give an opinion subject to the final call to be taken by the jurisdictional court. The registering officer can exercise only such power that has been conferred on him expressly by the statute. He does not have any inherent power. He cannot travel beyond the boundary drawn by Section 34 of the Registration Act. My attention has not been drawn to any provision which empowers the registering officer to test the veracity of the life certificate or the genuineness of the signatures found therein. This is because the registering officer is not a quasi judicial authority. The registering authority cannot defer registering the document on the ground that the principal disputes the signature attributed to him in the life certificate.

11.In this case, admittedly, the principals are very much present. When the principals are very much alive, the life certificate loses its significance. Therefore, on this ground, the registering authority could not have declined to register the document. Secondly, the sale deed appears to have been executed before the formal cancellation of the power of attorney. Thirdly, the document in question is one coupled with interest. All the issues that have arisen between the parties will have to be necessarily adjudicated only before the jurisdictional civil Court.

14/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

12.The second petitioner in whose favour the petition mentioned sale deed has been executed by the first petitioner is present in person and she has also filed an affidavit stating that till the disposal of O.S.Nos.313 to 321 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai, she will not alienate or encumber the petition mentioned property. This undertaking given by the second petitioner is placed on record.

13.In view of the said undertaking, the impugned refusal check slip is quashed. The petitioners are permitted to re-present the document. It shall be registered. Whether to release or not would depend upon the opinion to be formed by the registering authority regarding the valuation of the document. He is also restrained from entertaining any further document from the second petitioner in respect of the petition mentioned property. The contentions of both the parties are left open and none of the defences of R2 & R3 stand foreclosed. It is for the trial Court to take a call in the matter.

14.The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs.

28.10.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

15/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

To

The Sub Registrar, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

16/17

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

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi

W.P(MD)No.25964 of 2025

28.10.2025

17/17

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the registering authority can refuse to register a document executed by a power agent because the principals dispute their signatures on the life certificate.
2.
What is the scope of enquiry permissible under Section 34 of the Registration Act regarding life certificates accompanying power-agent documents.

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

2015 SCC OnLine Mad 13145Relied on¶8
Who else cites this
2014 SCC OnLine Mad 12788Referred¶5
Who else cites this
Arihabt Foundations and Housing Limited vs The State of Tamil NaduFollowed¶7
WP. No.4780 of 2025
Jayanth Rhenius vs The District RegistrarDistinguished¶10
W.P(MD)No.8998 of 2025

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Registration Act3482 & 83

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
A.Sodalaimuthu
petitioner
S.Vasugi
respondent
The Sub Registrar, Kariyapatti
respondent
S.Mohammed Ibrahim

Coram

AI extract

G.R.Swaminathan

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 28 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 18 Sept 2025
Case no.: WP(MD)/25964/2025
CNR: HCMD011288632025
Topic: Property and Title
Bench: G.r.swaminathan
Disposal: ALLOWED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan

Anai Ambalam Vs The District Registrar
27 Oct 2025
S.Arul Mayer Vs The Church of South India
27 Oct 2025
S.Chandra Vs Senthamarai Valli
27 Oct 2025
M/S.Mugasri Engineering Contractor Vs Commercial Tax Officer
28 Oct 2025
A.Sodalaimuthu Vs The Sub Registrar
28 Oct 2025
Sivagami J Vs The Regional Transport Authority
28 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

A.Sodalaimuthu v. The Sub Registrar, WP(MD)/25964/2025 (MAD), decided on 28 October 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited4

2015 SCC OnLine Mad 13145Relied on¶8
2014 SCC OnLine Mad 12788Referred¶5
Arihabt Foundations and Housing Limited vs The State of Tamil NaduFollowed¶7

View all cases cited

Statutes3

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Registration Act34 · 82 & 83

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

G.R.Swaminathan

Parties & counsel