Sathya v. The District Registrar,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN W.P.(MD)Nos.23206 and 23207 of 2026 Sathya, W/o.Sermakani, South Street, Veerakeralampudhur, Palapathirraramapuram, Tenkasi District - 627 953. ..Petitioner in both the W.Ps. Vs

¶1The District Registrar, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶2The Sub Registrar, Uthumalai Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi District.

¶3The Tahsildar, Tenkasi. (R3 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 13.08.2026) ..Respondents in both the W.Ps. Prayer in both the W.Ps.:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal No. RFL/Utthumalai/91/2026 dated 20.07.2026 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the Respondent No.2 to register the Sale Deed dated 17.07.2026 presented by the Petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and pass any further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. For Petitioner in both the W.Ps.: Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman For Respondents in both the W.Ps.: Mr.S.Venkatesh Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER By this common order, these two Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶2These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the impugned Refusal Check Slips issued by the second respondent dated 20.07.2026, declining to register the Sale Deeds presented by the petitioner on 20.07.2026.

¶3The petitioner has purchased the property from one Anthony Ammal, wife of Chinna Mariappan. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question originally belonged to one Murugalakshmi, who died on 23.11.2024, and that, upon her death, her husband, R.Chinnapan, inherited the property by way of intestate succession. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said R.Chinnapan also died on 21.09.2025, leaving behind the petitioner's vendor, namely, Anthony Ammal, as his only legal heir, and that the said Anthony Ammal executed the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revenue authorities have also issued a Patta in the name of the said Anthony Ammal, the vendor of the petitioner, and that the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to purchase the property. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned Refusal Check Slip is liable to be quashed, with a consequential direction to the respondents to register the Sale Deed dated 17.07.2026.

¶5On a specific query as to whether the petitioner had obtained any Legal Heirship Certificate in respect of the said Murugalakshmi and her husband after their respective deaths, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Legal Heirship Certificate dated 08.01.2025 was obtained after the death of Murugalakshmi on 23.11.2024.

¶6The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Legal Heirship Certificate relating to Murugalakshmi, which is enclosed at Page No.17 of the typed set of papers and is dated 08.01.2025.

¶7A perusal of the said Legal Heirship Certificate indicates that Murugalakshmi died leaving behind her husband, R.Chinnapan, on 23.11.2024. However, whether the petitioner's vendor, namely, Anthony Ammal, is indeed the sister of the said R.Chinnapan, husband of Murugalakshmi, has to be ascertained. A Legal Heirship Certificate in respect of R.Chinnapan also ought to have been obtained by the petitioner and/or by the petitioner's vendor, namely, Anthony Ammal, before proceeding with the purchase of the property.

¶8If the said R.Chinnapan had no legal heirs, the question as to the devolution of the estate has to be ascertained in accordance with law. The property which originally stood in the name of Murugalakshmi and which would have devolved upon her husband, R.Chinnapan, upon her death, cannot be dealt with by the petitioner's vendor without first establishing a valid succession to the property.

¶9Considering the same, I am inclined to suo motu implead the Tahsildar, Tenkasi, as the third respondent, to cause an investigation as to whether the petitioner's vendor, namely, Anthony Ammal, is indeed the sister of the said R.Chinnapan, husband of the original owner of the land, namely, Murugalakshmi. The newly impleaded third respondent/Tahsildar shall also ascertain whether any other legal heirs are there who would be entitled to inherit the property.

¶10The third respondent/Tahsildar shall submit a report before this Court after conducting the necessary enquiry. A copy of the report shall also be forwarded to the petitioner.

¶11These Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order smn2 Note:- Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title. To

¶1The District Registrar, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶2The Sub Registrar, Uthumalai Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi District.

¶3The Tahsildar, Tenkasi. C.SARAVANAN J. smn2 COMMON ORDER IN W.P.(MD)Nos.23206 and 23207 of 2026 13-08-2026