Disposed¶26

R.Pravinkumar v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC9 Dec 2025WP(MD)/35310/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: refusal check slip; Sub Registrar; registration of sale deed refused; executant not present; re-presentation after boundary rectification; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; Valliyur Registrar Office; Tirunelveli District; disposed of with no costs; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Krishnan Ramasamy J.; 09.12.2025; W.P.(MD)No.35310 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with no costs; petitioner permitted to re-present the sale deed documents along with the executant, and the first respondent (Sub Registrar) directed to consider and register the sale deed if it is in accordance with law. ¶26

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

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.35310 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.35310 of 2025

¶7

R.Pravinkumar ...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Sub Registrar, Valliyur Registrar Office, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.Ramuammal

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal No.RFL/Valliyur/58/2025, dated 19.11.2025 passed by the 1st respondent to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner dated 05.06.2025.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Raja Sivanath For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman, Government Advocate for R1

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal No.RFL/Valliyur/58/2025, dated 19.11.2025 passed by

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.35310 of 2025

¶19

the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 05.06.2025.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and they presented the sale deed for registration before the first respondent. As there was some mistake in the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed, the petitioner made a request for return of the document and re-presented the same after making appropriate rectifications in the sale deed. While so, the first respondent without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, issued the impugned refusal slip stating that the executant was not present. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that if an opportunity is provided to the petitioner, he will produce necessary documents along with the executant before the first respondent.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also agreed that if the petitioner and the executant are present along with necessary documents, the first respondent will consider registration of the sale deed.

¶22