Murugeswaran v. The District Registrar

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petition mentioned property belonged to one Subbaiah and his brothers. The said Subbaiah passed away on 26.08.2011, leaving behind his sons, Velu and Ramaiah, who are shown as the respondents 3 and 4 herein. In the year 2022, partition took place in the family of the private respondents herein. Partition deed dated 11.07.2022 was entered into involving the respondents 3 and 4 and their paternal uncles / aunt. Item no.1 was allotted to the third respondent and Item no.3 was allotted to the fourth respondent. The said items are now sought to be sold to the writ petitioner vide sale deed dated 13.08.2025. It was presented for registration. The registering authority declined to register the document on the ground that there was some confusion regarding the name of the original title holder. According to the petitioner, the father of the respondents 3 and 4 was one Subbaiah Moopanar, S/o.Karunjivanu Moopanar. But in the death certificate as well as in the legal heir certificate describes him as Subbaiah Mudaliar. Moopanar community is different from Mudaliar community. On this score, registration was refused. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

3.I am of the view that this discrepancy with regard to the name of Subbaiah need not have engaged the attention of the registering authority. Admittedly, the revenue record reflects the names of the respondents 3 and 4. When the revenue record is clear and there is no confusion regarding the writ petitioner's vendors, there is no need to undertake any further probe regarding their ancestry or the community to which they belonged. The community of Subbaiah appears to have been wrongly described in the death certificate and legal heir certificate. Since the revenue record reflects the name of the respondents 3 and 4, the registering authority cannot go beyond or behind the same. In this view of the matter, the impugned refusal check slip is quashed. The parties are at liberty to re-present the document. It shall be registered and released subject to the fulfilment of the other usual formalities.

4.This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

23.09.2025

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To

1.The District Registrar, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

2.The Sub Registrar, Karivalamvanthanallur Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. MGA

23.09.2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Murugeswaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Registrar, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi. 2.The Sub Registrar, Karivalamvanthanallur Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi District. 3.Velu 4.Ramaiah ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent in his proceedings in Refusal Number RFL/Karivalamvanthanallur/121/2025 dated 13.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 13.08.2025 which was submitted by the petitioner with regard to property in Survey No.575/1 to extent of 1 Acre 33 Cents Survey No.575/2 to an extent of 1 Acre 9 cents and a well situated at Panaiyur Village Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathisankar For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2