HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 26960 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 29527 OF 2026 Mahesh Kannan S/o.Kannan, B3/43, 4th Floor, Block 60, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna nagar west extension, Chennai – 600101. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, vadavalli, coimbatore – 641046.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 26960 of 2026
AND WMP NO. 29527 OF 2026
Mahesh Kannan
S/o.Kannan,
B3/43, 4th Floor, Block 60, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna nagar west extension, Chennai – 600101.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, vadavalli, coimbatore – 641046.
2. MR.M.Imran Bashra
S/o.S.R.Malik,
Door No.27A, Marutham nagar, k.k.pudur, coimbatore – 641038.
3. M/S.Nowshath Begum Malik
W/o.S.R.Malik,
Door No.27A, Marutham nagar, K.K.Pudur, coimbatore – 641038.
4. MRS.Reshma Parveen
W/o.Syed Usman,
Door No.34 SKV Nagar, maniyam kaliappa street extension, KK Pudur, coimbatore north, coimbatore – 641038.
5. MRS.Kamar Taj Danish Rabbani W/o.Danish Rabbani,
No.39 A, New york avenue, podanur, coimbatore south, coimbatore, podanur, pincode-641023.
6. Thiru.Sathish
S/o.M.Selvaraj,
Door no.65, kumaran street, uppilipalayam, coimbatore – 641015.
7. MRS.Umarani
W/o.S.Sathish,
Door No.65, kumaran street, uppilipalayam, coimbatore – 641015.
8. MR.Ashik ali
S/o.Khadhar Basha,
C-204, C-Block, sundresa Iyer layout, Highways colony, Trichy road, coimbatore – 641018.
9. MRS.Sheenas Nasrin
W/o.Ashik ALI,
C-204, C-Block, sundresa Iyer layout, Highways colony, trichy road, coimbatore – 641018.
10.MR.Ajjur Mohammed
S/o.MR.Ubaidulla,
Door No.328/92, mudichur road, west tambaram, kanchipuram – 600045.
11.The Tax Recovery Officer-I,
Income tax department,
63, race course road, coimbatore – 641018.
..Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Kumaran, for Mr.M.Dinesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Tamilvanan for R2, 3 & 4
Mr.Varun Ranganathan, for R6 & 7
Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, Sr. Adv
Mr.S.Udhayakumar, for R8 & 10 Dr.B.Ramawamy, Sr.St.counsel for R11 R5 & 9 – Service awaited.
Order
Initially, this matter was passed over for the submissions of the petitioner and the other respondents.
2. When this matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the registration of petitioner’s sale deed was rejected by the 1st respondent by citing the bar under Section 22B of the Registration Act, 1908. However, according to the petitioner, the provisions of Section 22B would not apply to the present case since it was incorporated only for the purpose of preventing the registration of fraudulent documents.
3. Further, he would submit that the clauses at Section 22B has to be read as separate parts of a single sentence, i.e., all the four clauses has to be read altogether. On the other hand, if the said provision is read by leaving any part, the same would not provide any meaning.
4. He would also contend that though the attachment order was passed on 04.08.2026, it will take effect only from 02.09.2026. In such case, there was no attachment order as on the date of presentation of sale deed and passing of impugned order. Hence, he prays for an interim order.
5. In reply, Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing counsel, appearing for the Income Tax Department had filed his counter and submitted that IT department is having statutory claim over the subject property. Further, he would contend that the private respondents are making bogus claims and hence, he requests this Court to take appropriate action against them.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents 8 & 10 would submit that there is a statutory bar for registration of the petitioner’s sale deed in terms of Section 22B of the Registration Act.
7. Further, by referring the provisions of Section 22B, he would submit that the semicolon (;) appears at the end of each clauses of the said provision refers that those are separate sentences. Hence, he would contend that each and every clauses of Section 22B has to be read separately.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the only purpose of incorporation of Section 22B is to prevent the registration of fraudulent documents. In the said provision, semicolon (;) is used at the end of each clauses and hence, each clauses are inter-linked and the same has to be read altogether. If it is read as separate sentences, the purpose of incorporation of the said provision will not be achieved. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
9. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the entire materials.
10. To deal with the issue involved in the present petition, it would be apposite to extract the provisions of Section 22B of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as follows:
“22-B. Refusal to register forged documents and other documents prohibited by law.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register the following documents, namely:— (1) forged document;
(2) document relating to a transaction, which is prohibited by any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force;
(3) document relating to transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift, lease or otherwise, which is attached permanently or provisionally by a competent authority under any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force or any
Court or Tribunal;
(4) any other document as the State Government may, by notification, specify.”
11. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider the meaning of
“semicolon” (;) as mentioned in Oxford dictionary, which reads as follows:
Semi-colon : the mark (;) used to separate the parts of a complicated sentence or items in a detailed list, showing a pause that is longer than a comma but shorter than a full stop/ period.
12. A conjoint reading of the above provision and meaning would show that semicolon (;) is used to divide a large complicated sentence into interlinked simpler sentences. In such case, it is clear that the clauses (1) to (4) have to be read altogether in order to obtain full meaning of the provision. Such reading of the above provision makes it clear that it was incorporated only to prevent the registration of fraudulent documents or the documents, which are prohibited by the Central and State Governments.
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the prima facie view that there is no embargo for the 1st respondent to register the petitioner’s sale deed 10.06.2026, pertaining to Plot Nos. 32 & 33, in terms of Section 22B of the
Registration Act, 1908. Hence, upon representation of the said sale deed, the same shall be registered, forthwith. It is made clear that if any registration is made subsequent to this order, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the present petition.
14. At request, post this matter on 12.08.2026.
06-08-2026
nsa
To
1. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, vadavalli, coimbatore – 641046.
2. The Tax Recovery Officer-I,
Income tax department, 63, race course road, coimbatore – 641018.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
nsa
WP No. 26960 of 2026
AND WMP NO. 29527 OF 2026
06-08-2026