S.Thirumoorthi, v. Inspector General of Registration,

ORDER This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated

09.09.2025 issued by the third respondent, refusing to register the release deed presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the fourth respondent Temple has filed a protest petition, opposing registration of any document pertaining to the very same property.

¶2The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: a) The said order has been passed by total non application of mind to the documents produced by the petitioner: b) The impugned order dated 09.09.2025 is a non speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner; c) The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 09.09.2025.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before this Court that earlier, in respect of the very same property, the third respondent had registered documents and despite production of the same, the third respondent has refused to register the release deed presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that a protest petition has been filed by the fourth respondent "Temple" for the very same property.

¶4The petitioner has filed supporting documents along with this writ petition in support of his contentions that there is no legal impediment for the third respondent to register the release deed presented by the petitioner for registration. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the same.

¶5Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

¶6Since no adverse orders are passed against the fourth respondent in this writ petition, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with by this Court.

¶7As seen from the impugned order dated 09.09.2025, the petitioner's contentions as raised in this writ petition along with the petitioner's supporting documents have not been considered by the third respondent while rejecting the petitioner's request for registration of the release deed presented by the petitioner. The petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the third respondent prior to passing of the impugned order dated 09.09.2025.

¶8Since the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 is a non-speaking order and is an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, necessarily, the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the objections of the fourth respondent "Temple" within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶9Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 issued by the third respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall submit a written explanation to the third respondent along with supporting documents, stating as to how there is no legal impediment for the third respondent to register the release deed presented by the petitioner for registration along with supporting documents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, within the stipulated time, the third respondent after hearing the objections of the fourth respondent "Temple" and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by the petitioner, shall take a final decision as to whether the release deed presented by the petitioner can be registered or not within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶10In case, the third respondent decides to refuse registration of the release deed presented by the petitioner, the third respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

¶11With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab To

1.Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The District Registrar, Registrar Office, Thottathu Palayam, Tiruppur - 641 602.

3.The Sub-Registrar, Nallur Sub Registrar Office, Nallur, Tiruppur District - 641 606. WPeNo.e11108eofe2026 ABDULoQUDDHOSEoJ. ab WPoNo.o11108oofo2026 ANDoWMPoNO.o12066o OFo2026,WMPoNO.o 12063oOFo2026 30-03-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE AND WMP NO. 12066 OF 2026,WMP NO. 12063 OF 2026 1. S.Thirumoorthi, S/o.Sivasamy Gounder, Door No.659/2B1, Cheran Nagar Extension, Rakkiyapalayam, Cinepark Theatre Road, Kangeyam road, vijayapuram, Tiruppur - 641 606. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai - 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, Registrar Office, Thottathu Palayam, Tiruppur - 641 602. 3.The Sub-Registrar, Nallur Sub Registrar Office, Nallur, Tiruppur District - 641 606. 4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vishuveshwarasamy Visalakshi Amman Subramaniyasamy Temple, Nallur, Tiruppur District - 641 606. Respondent(s) PRAYER Calling for the records of the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.341/2025 dated 09.09.2025 as illegal and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to accept, register and release documents with respect to the property situated at S.F.No.1/1B (Sub Division S.F.No.1/1B2) and S.F.No.1/1A (Sub Division S.F.No.1/1A2), Nallur Village, Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthy for M/s.S.Varsha For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan,SGP For Respondent