Dismissed¶44

K.R.Kaliyan v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC12 Jun 2026WP/10021/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC; WP No. 10021 of 2025; refusal check slip 26.02.2025 by Sub Registrar Elavanasur; registration of sale deed refused over Survey Nos. 229/25 & 229/26, Ellaigramam, Kallakurichi District; vendor Balakrishnan's patta cancelled by DRO order dated 09.05.2024 (unchallenged, attained finality) and re-issued to Respondent 4 Venkatachala Konar; settlement deed dated 10.07.2019 by Kannu Konar; title disputed - parties directed to civil court; Sub-Registrar cannot decide title; impugned order upheld; writ petition dismissed, no costs; Krishnan Ramasamy J.; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was held devoid of merits and dismissed, with no costs. ¶44

K.R.Kaliyan Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was held devoid of merits and dismissed, with no costs.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the refusal check slip dated 26.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent (Sub Registrar, Elavanasur) refusing registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner over Survey Nos. 229/25 and 229/26 should be quashed and the sale deed directed to be registered. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Given the disputed title, the cancellation of the vendor's patta and its re-issuance in favour of the 4th respondent, the Sub-Registrar rightly refused to register the sale deed and passed the impugned order, which need not be interfered with.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The DRO's order dated 09.05.2024 cancelling the patta issued in favour of the petitioner's vendor was not challenged before any appellate authority and has therefore attained finality.

¶38

Key takeaways

Observation in passing: the Sub-Registrar ought to have granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties before passing orders; no remedial consequence was drawn from this lapse.obiter¶38
With title itself disputed and patta cancelled and re-issued in favour of the 4th respondent, the right course available to the petitioner's vendor is to approach the civil court and establish his right over the property; the vendor himself is not before this Court, only the purchaser is.ratio¶43
The parties were directed to approach the civil court to agitate their rights and establish title, since title cannot be decided by the Sub-Registrar.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J., 12-06-2026): Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a prospective purchaser seeking quashing of the refusal check slip dated 26.02.2025 of the Sub Registrar, Elavanasur, and registration of a sale deed over Survey Nos. 229/25 (0.030 ares) and 229/26 (0.0505 ares), Ellaigramam, Kallakurichi District. Background extracted from the record: Kannu Konar settled the property on his son Balakrishnan (petitioner's vendor) vide settlement deed dated 10.07.2019; the patta issued to Balakrishnan was cancelled by the DRO by order dated 09.05.2024 (at which Balakrishnan appeared) following objections of Respondent 4 (Venkatachala Konar, impleaded 04.04.2025 in W.M.P. No. 13578 of 2025), who claimed the property as his grand father's; patta was re-issued to Respondent 4; the cancellation order was never challenged and attained finality. Held (ratio): with title itself disputed, title cannot be decided by the Sub-Registrar; the right course for the vendor is to approach the civil court and establish his right; the parties were directed accordingly; the Sub-Registrar rightly refused registration and the impugned order need not be interfered with. Obiter observation: the Sub-Registrar ought to have granted a personal hearing before passing orders. Outcome: writ petition dismissed, no costs.

¶1

WP No. 10021 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 10021 of 2025

¶6

K.R.Kaliyan

¶7

S/o.Rajagopal, West Street, Koo Thangal, Ellaigramam, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai-600 028.

¶11

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Elavanasur, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Ulundurpet Taluk Office, Kallakurichi District.

¶13

Venkatachala Konar, S/o. Iyyakannu Konar, Koo Thangal Village, Ellaigramam Post, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District. (R4 Impleaded Vide Order Dt 04.04.2025 Made In Wmp.13578/2025 In Wp.10021/2025 by NAVJ)

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his Check slip dated 26.02.2025 quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to register the sale deed filed by the petitioner with respect of the lands comprised

¶16

Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 10021 of 2025

¶19

in survey No.229/25 with an extent of 0.030 ares and survey No.229/26 with an extent of 0.0505 ares situated at Ellaigramam, Elavanasur SRO, Kallakurichi District.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.G.Rajan

¶21

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Roshan Atiq Government Counsel for R1 & R2

¶22

Mr.B.Pachaiyappan Government Counsel for R3

¶23

Ms.R.Divya Preathika for R4

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 26.02.2025 and direct the 2^nd respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner with respect of the lands comprised in survey No.229/25 with an extent of 0.030 ares and survey No.229/26 with an extent of 0.0505 ares situated at Ellaigramam, Elavanasur SRO, Kallakurichi District.

¶26

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submit that the property belongs to his grand father therefore, the 4^th respondent made objections when the petitioner filed the sale deed for the purpose of registration in his favour and the same came to be rejected by the 2^nd respondent citing reason that the 4^th respondent made objections claiming that it is his grand father’s property.

¶27

__________ Page2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 10021 of 2025

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no legal heir certificate was produced by the 4^th respondent to prove the same and he would submit that originally the property belongs to Kannu Konar and the said Kannu Konar settled the property vide settlement deed dated 10.07.2019 in favour of his son Balakrishnan. In turn, when the said Balakrishnan intend to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the same was rejected on the basis of the objection made by the 4^th respondent, without even issuing notice to the 4^th respondent. Hence the present writ petition is filed.

¶31

The 4^th respondent filed a counter stating that the property belongs to the his grand father and the patta was wrongly issued to the petitioner’s Vendor, Balakrishnan and the same was cancelled by DRO where, the Balakrishnan also appeared before the DRO and the DRO passed order cancelling patta by order dated 09.05.2024. It is stated that no challenge was made against the said order. Under these circumstances, the said Balakrishnan executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Though the official respondents failed to conduct enquiry proceedings but, on the strength of the objections made by the 4^th respondent, the respondents refused to receive the same, since there was a dispute on the title.

¶32

The learned counsel for the official respondents would submit that as early as on 09.05.2024 itself, the patta issued in favour of the petitioner’s

¶33

Page3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 10021 of 2025

¶36

vendor was cancelled, since the petitioner’s vendor have no title. No appeal also filed as against the said order. Under these circumstances, the sale deed was presented by the said Balakrishnan to sell the properties in favour of the petitioner. Since there was clear dispute on the title and the patta was also cancelled and re-issued in favour of the 4^th respondent, the respondents are not in a position to register the same.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶38

While there was a dispute regarding the title, the petitioner claims his Vendor is having title over the property. It is seen that the patta was cancelled by the DRO where the petitioner’s vendor has effectively participated and patta cancelled by virtue of the order dated 09.05.2024. Further, the said order was not challenged before any appellate authority. Therefore, the said order has attained finality. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed, by taking into consideration the order cancelling patta and re-issuance of patta in the name of the 4^th respondent. However, he supposed to have granted opportunity of personal hearing to the parties before passing orders.

¶39

Such being the case, when the title itself is disputed and the revenue authorities passed order cancelling patta issued in favour of the petitioner’s

¶40

Page4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 10021 of 2025

¶43

vendor and re-issued the same in favour of the 4^th respondent, now the right course available to the petitioner’s vendor is to approach the civil court and establish his right over the property. Even in the present case, vendor is not before this Court, only the purchaser is before this Court. Therefore, the parties are directed to approach the civil court to agitate their rights and establish title, which cannot be decided by the Sub-Registrar. Such being the case, the SubRegistrar has rightly refused to register the sale deed and passed the impugned order, which need not be interfered with.

¶44