Allowed¶24

Pandian v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC11 Mar 2025WP(MD)/4116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD) No. 4116 of 2025; refusal check slip RFL/jpUkak;/124/2024 dated 06.11.2024; Sub Registrar Thirumayam; refusal to register sale deed dated 25.07.2024 (Survey No.284/7A, 47 Cents, Neivasal Revenue Village); Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; follows T.Senthilvel v. District Registrar Dindigul, W.P.(MD) No. 22114 of 2024 (N. Sathish Kumar, J.); registration does not confer title; recourse to Civil Court; V. Lakshminarayanan, J.; decided 11.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: refusal check slip RFL/jpUkak;/124/2024 dated 06.11.2024 quashed; 3rd respondent directed to register the sale deed dated 25.07.2024 within two (2) weeks of upload of the order; no order as to costs. ¶24

Pandian Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the refusal check slip RFL/jpUkak;/124/2024 dated 06.11.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, refusing registration of the petitioner's sale deed dated 25.07.2024, is illegal and without jurisdiction such that it should be quashed and registration directed.

¶13

Court's answer

Since the issue in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Sathish Kumar in T. Senthilvel v. The District Registrar (Administration), Dindigul District and others (W.P.(MD) No. 22114 of 2024, dated 17.10.2024), the impugned refusal check slip RFL/jpUkak;/124/2024 dated 06.11.2024 is quashed.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The third respondent (Sub Registrar, Thirumayam) is directed to register the sale deed dated 25.07.2024 executed in favour of the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of uploading of the order on the Court's website.

¶19

Key takeaways

Caveat: mere registration of the document does not confer title on the petitioner, nor will registration affect the rights of any other person claiming over the property; aggrieved parties remain free to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), V. Lakshminarayanan, J., W.P.(MD) No. 4116 of 2025, decided 11.03.2025 — Pandian filed an Article 226 writ seeking quashal of refusal check slip RFL/jpUkak;/124/2024 dated 06.11.2024 issued by the Sub Registrar, Thirumayam (3rd respondent), who had refused registration of the sale deed dated 25.07.2024 presented on 06.11.2024 in respect of Survey No.284/7A, 0.19.0 Ares (47 Cents), Neivasal Revenue Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai. Finding the issue covered by Justice N. Sathish Kumar's judgment in T. Senthilvel v. District Registrar (Administration), Dindigul District (W.P.(MD) No. 22114 of 2024, dated 17.10.2024), the court FOLLOWED that judgment, quashed the refusal check slip and directed the Sub Registrar to register the deed within two (2) weeks. The court cautioned that registration of a document does not by itself confer title and will not affect any third party's claim over the property; aggrieved parties may seek remedy before the jurisdictional Civil Court. No order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.4116 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.4116 of 2025

Pandian

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Cathedral Road, Santhome, Chennai.

¶11

2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Thirumayam, Pudukottai District. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip RFL/jpUkak;/124/2024 dated 06.11.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and further directing 3^rd respondent to register the sale deed dated 25.07.2024 presented by the petitioner on 06.11.2024 in respect of Survey No.284/7A to an extent of 0.19.0 Ares (47 Cents) of Neivasal Revenue Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai and return the same in accordance with law.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.4116 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Parisuthanathan For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The issue raised in the present Writ Petition is covered by a judgment of the Honourable Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar in T.Senthilvel Vs. the District Registrar (Administration), Dindigul District and others in W.P.(MD).No. 22114 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 . Following the said judgment, the impugned order in RFL/jpUkak;/124/2024 dated 06.11.2024 is quashed. There shall be a direction to the third respondent to register the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner dated 25.07.2024, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of uploading of this order in the website of this Court.

¶20

The fact that the sale deed has been registered does not mean that the petitioner automatically gets title. Mere registration of a document does not confer title on the person. If any person has a claim over the property, the registration of this document will not affect the right of the said person. It is always open to the parties to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court, in case they are aggrieved.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.4116 of 2025

¶24