THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.(MD)No.11652 of 2026 A.P.Raghunathan … Petitioner -vs- The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, 336, Railway Boarder Street, Ward 9, Karivalamvandanallur, Thenkasi District – 627753. … Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned check slip in Refusal No. RFL/Karivalamvandanallur/14/2026 and RFL/Book-2 No.14/2026 dated 20.02.2026 issued by the respondent, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 20.02.2026 presented by the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi Senior Counsel for M/s.Rugan and Arya For Respondent : Ms.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar Standing Counsel
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD)No.11652 of 2026
A.P.Raghunathan … Petitioner
-vs-
The Sub Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
336, Railway Boarder Street, Ward 9,
Karivalamvandanallur,
Thenkasi District – 627753. … Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned check slip in Refusal No. RFL/Karivalamvandanallur/14/2026 and RFL/Book-2 No.14/2026 dated 20.02.2026 issued by the respondent, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 20.02.2026 presented by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Rugan and Arya
For Respondent : Ms.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 20.02.2026.
2. The petitioner presented a sale deed for registration. However, registration was refused under the impugned refusal check slip. The reason assigned is that the property in question had originally been purchased in the name of a Firm, namely, V.P.S.A.Rathina Nadar & Co., represented by its partner, R.Sridharan, whereas the document has now been presented by A.P.Raghunathan, and there is no registered document establishing the link of title in his favour. It is further stated that, in respect of the purchaser Association, no resolution authorising the purchase has been produced.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the property was originally purchased in the name of the Firm. According to him, the Firm and several other business entities were managed by the family of V.Paramasiva Nadar. Subsequently, upon the demise of his sons, the family members, including his sons, grandsons and great-grandsons, mutually agreed that the various properties standing in their individual names, joint names and in the names of business concerns, including Firms, belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family. They accordingly effected an oral partition and reallocated the properties among themselves. It is submitted that all the members of the family, including R.Sridharan, whose name finds place in the refusal check slip, have signed the memorandum recording the arrangement, and specific properties were allotted to each member.
4. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, as per the schedule to the said memorandum, the property in question was allotted to A.P.Raghunathan, who has since been in possession and enjoyment thereof. The revenue records have also been mutated in his name. It is further submitted that transactions relating to portions of the very same property had earlier been effected and registered, including a document registered as Document No.3271 of 2026. In such circumstances, when the petitioner presented the sale deed for registration, the same was refused solely on the ground that the original deed of purchase had not been produced and that there was no registered document linking the title to the petitioner.
5. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908, as it presently stands, merely requires production of the original document through which the person claims title. According to him, the petitioner is in possession of the original memorandum recording the oral partition, and the same had already been produced before the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the reasoning contained in the impugned refusal check slip cannot be sustained, and the document ought to be registered.
6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the title traceable from the records ends with the original purchase in the name of the Firm. There is no registered document thereafter linking the title to A.P.Raghunathan. It is in this context that Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908, has to be considered. According to the respondent, the original title deed under which the property was purchased ought to have been produced. The parent document has not been produced. Though an oral partition may subsequently be recorded in writing through an unregistered document, when the title originally stands in the name of R.Sridharan under a registered sale deed and the petitioner claims title through him, production of the original parent document becomes necessary. In the absence of any registered document vesting title in favour of the petitioner and in the absence of the parent document, the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing registration.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. At the outset, it is to be noted that neither R.Sridharan nor any other member of the family, nor any person claiming interest through the Firm, namely, V.P.S.A.Rathina Nadar & Co., has raised any objection to the transaction. As a matter of fact, portions of the very same larger extent of property purchased in the name of the said Firm had earlier been dealt with, and a settlement deed dated 24.04.2026 was registered as Document No.3271 of 2026.
9. In the above factual backdrop, a reading of Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908, indicates that it merely requires production of the title document through which the executant claims title. In the present case, the petitioner, A.P.Raghunathan, claims title through the memorandum dated 17.01.2000, which records the oral partition effected among the family members. Therefore, when the original of the said memorandum, through which the petitioner claims title, is produced, the requirement contemplated under Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908, stands satisfied. As regards the question whether the petitioner has a valid and marketable title to the property, the same falls within the realm of adjudication of title and is not a matter to be determined by the registering authority. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P.Velayutham and K.Gopi v. Sub-Registrar and Others , the issue as to whether a person is legally entitled to convey title does not fall within the scope of enquiry by the Sub-Registrar while exercising powers under the Registration Act.
10. In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned refusal check slip cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The impugned refusal check slip dated 20.02.2026 is set aside.
(ii) The petitioner shall, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of web copy of this order, re-present the sale deed for registration.
(iii) Upon such presentation, and if there is no other statutory or legal impediment, the respondent shall register the document in accordance with law.
There shall be no order as to costs.
09.06.2026
NCC : Yes
smn2
To:-
The Sub Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
336, Railway Boarder Street, Ward 9,
Karivalamvandanallur,
Thenkasi District – 627753.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
smn2
W.P.(MD)No.11652 of 2026
09.06.2026
