Sriram M v. The Sub Registrar

ORDER The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 25.06.2026, whereby the registration of the Sale Page No. 1 of 7 Deed dated 23.06.2026 has been refused on the following three grounds:

¶2The Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner, M.Sriram, by M/s. Senzo Engineering Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Zacharias Madallyatta Mathew. Under the said Sale Deed, the Executant has agreed to convey lands comprised in different survey numbers for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,10,000/-.

¶3Insofar as Objection Nos.1 and 2 contained in the impugned Refusal Check Slip are concerned, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the objections have been raised on Page No. 2 of 7 account of an inadvertent error. She also substantiated the same by drawing the attention of this Court to the Judgment and Decree dated

29.01.2015 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur, in O.S.No.55 of 2014.

¶4The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the property in question does not fall within the purview of the proceedings initiated by SEBI, which are under the supervision of Hon'ble Justice R.M. Lodha (Retd.), former Chief Justice of India, who has been appointed as the Administrator.

¶5Insofar as Objection No.3 is concerned, the schedule to the Sale Deed indicates that the petitioner proposes to purchase an extent of 3.98 Acres in Survey No.637/3C, covered under Patta No.11336, which is stated to stand in the name of one Kalidoss.

¶6Objection No.3 itself records that the said Kalidoss, along with one Packiyam, had executed a registered Power of Attorney bearing Document No.512 of 2017, which was subsequently cancelled by a registered Cancellation Deed bearing Document No.4656 of 2019. Page No. 3 of 7

¶7A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the manner in which M/s. Senzo Engineering Private Limited has derived title so as to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶8When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the Encumbrance Certificate dated

08.07.2026.

¶9A perusal of the Encumbrance Certificate shows that, insofar as Survey No.637/3C is concerned, the property had been conveyed by Jiji Varghese P.J. to Zacharias Madallyatta Mathew under Sale Deed dated

07.01.2011 registered as Document No.105 of 2011. Therefore, prima facie, insofar as the property comprised in Survey No.637/3C is concerned, the conveyance can only be executed by Zacharias Madallyatta Mathew in his individual capacity and not in his capacity as the representative of M/s. Senzo Engineering Private Limited. Consequently, appropriate corrections shall be carried out in the preamble as well as in the relevant recitals of the Sale Deed. Page No. 4 of 7

¶10Further, the description of the property requires clarification. The Sale Deed states that, out of a total extent of 1.61.0 Hectares in Survey No.637/3C, an extent of 3.98 Acres is proposed to be conveyed to the petitioner. However, the Encumbrance Certificate reflects the extent in the said survey number as only 2 Acres and 92½ Cents. Prima facie, therefore, the property description contained in the schedule to the Sale Deed does not tally with the particulars reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate.

¶11The petitioner shall also satisfactorily explain the chain of title, particularly, as to how the property, which originally stood in the names of Kalidoss and Packiyam under Patta No.11336, subsequently came to be conveyed by Jiji Varghese P.J. under the registered Sale Deed dated

07.01.2011 bearing Document No.105 of 2011.

¶12The petitioner is, therefore, directed to redraw the Sale Deed by incorporating the necessary corrections in the recitals and by furnishing a complete and accurate description of the property, together with the relevant particulars establishing the chain of title. Page No. 5 of 7

¶13Subject to the petitioner complying with the above directions and presenting a fresh document for registration, the respondent shall receive and register the same, if it is otherwise in order and there is no other legal impediment.

¶14The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No

09.07.2026 smn2

To The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Bodinayakanur, Theni District. Page No. 6 of 7 C.SARAVANAN

, J.

smn2

09.07.2026 Page No. 7 of 7

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD)No.19047 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)No.14087 of 2026 M.Sriram ... Petitioner Vs. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Bodinayakanur, Theni District. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal slip in TP/283434474/2026 dated 25.06.2026 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arikaran For Respondent : Ms.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar Government Standing Counsel