Arunachalam v. The Sub Registrar

O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 1st respondent dated 22.09.2025.

¶2By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶3The grievance of the petitioners is that when the petitioners presented a sale deed dated 04.08.2025 for registration, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that the subject property belongs to 2nd respondent temple. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry, the impugned order was passed. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶5The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent would fairly submitted that without issuing notice to the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration.

¶6This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that before issuing any refusal check slip, the 1st respondent has supposed to conduct enquiry with regard to the status of the property and after perusing the available materials, the 1st respondent has supposed to take a decision for registration of any document. In the present case, the said procedure is not followed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶8Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioners are directed to represent the sale deed dated 04.08.2025. Upon representation, 1st the respondent, after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the other parties concerned and after hearing the parties, is directed to take a decision with regard to the registration of the sale deed dated 04.08.2025.

¶9With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

28.01.2026 vsm Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No To

1.The Sub Registrar, Moolakaraipatti, Tirunelveli.

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Venkatachalapaty Temple, Thirumalapuram, Tirunelveli District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. vsm W.P.(MD)No.1996 of 2026

28.01.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.1996 of 2026 1.Arunachalam 2.Angu Saranya ... Petitioners Vs 1.The Sub Registrar, Moolakaraipatti, Tirunelveli. 2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Venkatachalapaty Temple, Thirumalapuram, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Moolaikaraipatti/1/2005 dated 22.09.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to assign registration number for the pending Doc.No.P36/2025, dated 04.08.2025 and release the same within the time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karthick Raja For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr.K.Balasubramani, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R2