Allowed

Marx v. The District Registrar

Madras HC9 Mar 2026WP/8212/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Sub Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed issued because another party filed an appeal. The Court held the order was non-speaking and violation of natural justice, remanding the matter for a merit-based decision after hearing both parties within six weeks. An order by a single bench in Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned refusal check slip to register the sale deed is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law within six we

Marx Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 8212 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

WP No. 8212 of 2026

Marx

Petitioner(s)

The District Registrar Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar Dharmapuri (West) Registrar Office, Dharmapuri District.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

To call for the records of refusal check Slip dated 09.02.2026 in Refusal No.RFL/ Dharmapuri West / 19/ 2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed document.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Balamurugan

¶16

For Respondent(s): Ms.K.Ashwini Devi,AGP

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned refusal check

¶19

slip dated 09.02.2026 passed by the second respondent, refusing to register the

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 8212 of 2026

¶22

sale deed, presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the civil suit, which was earlier dismissed and in which the petitioner was the defendant, has not attained finality, since an appeal is pending.

¶23

2.Ms.K.Aswini Devi, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶24

3.As seen from the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.02.2026, the

¶25

other party has preferred an appeal as against the dismissal of the suit in which the petitioner was the defendant, who was not heard.

¶26

4.The petitioner categorically contends that he is the owner of the property. According to him, arbitrarily and by total non-application of mind, the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.02.2026 has been issued. Unless and until both the parties, namely, the petitioner and the other party, who has preferred an appeal as against the dismissal of the suit in which the petitioner was the defendant, are heard, truth cannot be unearthed.

¶27

5.Since the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.02.2026 has been passed by the second respondent in violation of principles of natural justice and

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 8212 of 2026

¶30

is a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this petition as well as the supporting documents produced by the petitioner, necessarily, the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.02.2026 passed by the second respondent has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

6.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.02.2026 passed by the second respondent is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law. The second respondent, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other party, namely Manickam, who had earlier filed a suit against the petitioner in respect of the very same property, the said suit having got dismissed and which is now the subject matter of appeal filed by the said Manickam and after giving due consideration to the supporting documents produced by both of them, shall take a final decision, on merits and in accordance with law as to whether the sale deed presented by the petitioner can be registered or not, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the second respondent decides to reject the petitioner’s request for registration of the sale deed, the second respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 8212 of 2026

¶34

the contentions of the petitioner and the supporting documents to be produced by the petitioner. No costs.

¶35

09-03-2026

¶36

vga

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 8212 of 2026

¶39

¶40

1.The District Registrar Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶41

2.The Sub Registrar Dharmapuri (West) Registrar Office, Dharmapuri District.

¶42

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

¶43

WP No. 8212 of 2026

¶44

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

¶45

vga

¶46

WP No. 8212 of 2026

¶47

09-03-2026

¶48

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

Marx v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marx v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Janarthanan Vs The District collector

Sri Aandavar Constructions Vs the District Collector

Gopalakrishnan Vs the District Collector

Proclime Services Private Limited Vs the Deputy Director

Bhuvaneswari Vs The Sub Registrar

Bharathi Vs The District Registrar