Allowed¶33

Naryanasamy v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC18 Jun 2026WP/23156/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrability of a preliminary decree pending final decree proceedings; Sub Registrar's refusal check slip; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution; partition decree O.S.No.279 of 2016 (Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal); petitioner decreed 1/7th share; direction to register decree within 48 hours; Tamil Nadu registration practice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026 bearing RFL/Puduchatram-Namakkal/95/2026 set aside; respondent directed to register the preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 passed in O.S.No.279 of 2016 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs awarded. ¶33

Naryanasamy Vs the Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sub Registrar could lawfully refuse registration of the preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 in O.S.No.279 of 2016 on the ground that the final decree was yet to be passed, despite the preliminary decree having quantified the parties' rights; and whether the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026 should be quashed with a consequential direction to register the decree.

¶19

Court's answer

By virtue of the preliminary decree the rights of the parties stand decided, and final decree proceedings relate only to the apportionment of shares and the boundary of the property.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In any event, when a preliminary decree is presented for registration the respondent is supposed to register it, and refusal of such registration cannot be sustained in the eyes of law; therefore the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026 issued by the Respondent is liable to be set aside.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J., order dated 18-06-2026) in WP No. 23156 of 2026 under Article 226: writ of certiorarified mandamus allowed against the refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026 bearing RFL/Puduchatram-Namakkal/95/2026, by which the Sub Registrar, Puduchatiram (Namakkal Taluk), refused registration of the preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 in O.S.No.279 of 2016 - a partition suit in which the petitioner was decreed a 1/7th share with a permanent injunction against alienation or encumbrance - on the stated ground that the final decree was yet to be passed. Held: a preliminary decree conclusively decides the parties' rights; final decree proceedings concern only apportionment and boundaries; a preliminary decree presented for registration must be registered, and its refusal is unsustainable. Check slip set aside; Sub Registrar directed to register the decree within 48 hours; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 23156 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 23156 of 2026

¶6

Naryanasamy ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Sub Registrar Puduchatiram, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District. ..Respondent(s)

¶9

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026 bearing RFL/Puduchatram-Namakkal/95/2026 issued by the Respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 passed in O.S. No.279 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Elangovan For Respondent : Mr.Dominic S. David Government's Counsel

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Challenge was made to the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026

¶13

bearing RFL/Puduchatram-Namakkal/95/2026 issued by the respondent and for

¶14

Page1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 23156 of 2026

¶17

consequential direction to the respondent to register the preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 passed in O.S. No.279 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.279 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, against one R.Murugesan and others seeking the relief of partition, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The said suit was partly decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 declaring that the petitioner is entitled to 1/7th share in the suit property granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property. The petitioner presented the said preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 passed in O.S.No.279 of 2016 before the respondent for registration on 31.05.2026 and the document was taken up for registration on 01.06.2026. However, the respondent refused to register the said preliminary decree and issued the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has refused to register the preliminary decree stating that the final decree is yet to be passed. However, he submitted that in the preliminary decree

¶20

Page2 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

WP No. 23156 of 2026

¶23

the rights of the parties have been quantified. Hence, any judgment and decree if presented for registration at the instance of the parties concerned, then the respondent is supposed to register the same. On the contrary, the respondent

¶24

has refused to register the preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 by way of the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026 which has to be quashed.

¶25

The learned Government's counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by virtue of the preliminary decree, the rights of the parties have been decided and final decree proceedings is only with reference to the apportionment and the boundary of the property. Therefore, in any event, if any preliminary decree is presented for registration, the respondent is supposed to register the same and the refusal of the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the said impugned refusal check slip dated 02.06.2026 bearing RFL/PuduchatramNamakkal/95/2026 issued by the Respondent is liable to be set aside.

¶28

Page3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 23156 of 2026

¶31

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned refusal

¶32

check slip dated 02.06.2026 bearing RFL/Puduchatram-Namakkal/95/2026

¶33

issued by the Respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to register the preliminary decree dated 30.09.2020 passed in O.S.No.279 of 2016 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, within forty eight (48) hours from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶34

18-06-2026

¶35

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶36

SRM

¶37

__________ Page4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 23156 of 2026