- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 7 August 2026
- Bench
- Krishnan Ramasamy
- Case no.
- WP 31143/2026
Judgment
ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the Refusal Check Slip bearing no. RFL/Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Krishnagiri 57/2026 dated 22.07.2026 on the file of the second respondent and to consequently, direct the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 22.07.2026 executed by the petitioner in favour of one S.B. Soniya.
¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner presented the sale deed dated 22.07.2026 executed in favour of S.B.Soniya for registration before the second respondent on 22.07.2026, the said document was refused by the second respondent vide the impugned refusal check slip dated 22.07.2026 citing the reason that the petitioner did not produce the original sale deed as prescribed under Section 34(C) of the Registration Act, 1908. He further submitted that the petitioner derived right over the subject property through a registered sale deed document No.2002 of 2016 dated
17.06.2016 executed by one Mohammed Yusuf. While so, mere non-production of original sale deed cannot be cited as a reason for refusal of registration as the said provision viz., Section 34(C) of the Registration Act, 1908, has now been struck down by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Dugars vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (W.P.(MD) Nos.7415, 6183, 9526 and 16387 of 2026 decided on 23.06.2026). Therefore, he prays for quashing of the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 22.07.2026.
¶3Ms.Anu Ganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly submitted that as Section 34(C), ibid., has now been struck down by this Court, the second respondent would consider the petitioner's request upon re-presentation of the documents for registration.
¶4Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
¶5Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also the fact that the subject property was sold to the petitioner through a sale deed dated 17.06.2016 and also Section 34 (C), ibid., has now been struck down by this Court, the second respondent cannot insist for production of original documents. Therefore, the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 22.07.2026 is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside.
¶6Therefore, this Court directs the petitioner to re-present the sale deed dated 22.07.2026 along with certified copies of the sale deed dated
17.06.2016 in and by which the petitioner purchased the property in question. Upon production of such documents along with the sale deed dated 22.07.2026, the second respondent is directed to register the same within a period of one week.
¶7With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 07-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SRM To:
¶1The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Foreshore Estate Pattinapakkam Chennai 600 028
¶2The Sub-Registrar Joint-II Krishnagiri Sub-Registrar Office Krishnagiri District
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. SRM WP No. 31143 of 2026 07-08-2026
Case details
Parties and counsel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY M.S.Balaji ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road Foreshore Estate, Pattinapakkam Chennai - 600 028 2. The Sub-Registrar Joint-II, Krishnagiri Sub-Registrar Office Krishnagiri District ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of Refusal Check Slip made in Refusal Number RFL/Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Krishnagiri 57/2026, dated 22.07.2026, passed by the second respondent, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, directing the second respondent to register petitioner's sale deed dated 22.07.2026. For petitioner Mr. S. Senthamizhan For respondents Ms. Anu Ganesan Additional Government Pleader - - -
Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.