Madras High Court
WP(MD)/26287/2026 of K.Venkateswaran Vs The Sub Registrar on 7 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD) No. 26287 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011294002026}
1. K.Venkateswaran
2. K.Jegadheeswaran
..Petitioners
-vs-
1. The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Usilampatti, Madurai District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Usilampatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
(R2 was suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 11.09.2026 in W.P.(MD)No.26287 of 2026)
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Usilampatti/42/2026
dated 03.09.2026 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 11.08.2026
presented by the petitioner within a time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioners
:Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
For Respondents
:Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
Special Government Pleader
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the first respondent with a direction to the first respondent to register the sale deed dated 11.08.2026 presented by the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is to be noted that the impugned refusal check slip refusing to register a sale deed had been issued on the ground that the death certificate and the legal heir certificate of the original owner of the property had not been produced for verification.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the purchasers of the subject property and the original owner, namely, Paramasivam, from whom, the petitioners’ vendors derived title had passed away in the year 1997 and the vendors are none other than his daughter-in-law and granddaughter and it is difficult for them to produce the aforesaid certificates. The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on the patta that had been issued in favour of the petitioners’ vendors. Hence, he submitted that since patta has been produced, it is incumbent on part of the first respondent to register the document submitted by the petitioners.
5. In his connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon an order of this Court in the case of Ayyakannu -vs.- the Inspector General of Registration and others, in W.P.No.39914 of 2024, dated 06.01.2025, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the petitioner therein had been in possession of the subject properties, which is evident from the patta that has been issued in his favour and that demand for production of legal heirship certificate is misconceived. Hence, he prays this Court to set aside the impugned refusal check slip and permit registration of the document in favour of the petitioners.
6. Countering his argument, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that patta cannot be a proof of title for the property and would submit that the said patta cannot vest title with the vendors of the petitioners. That apart, he also submitted that it is for the successor in interest to place necessary proof of their right to deal with the property. He further submitted that having not produced such documents, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned refusal check slip and hence, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. In the present case, the petitioners claim that their vendors are the daughter-in-law and grand-daughter of the original owner of the property. It could be seen after the death of the original owner, patta had been mutated in favour of one Rajaguru and Ganesan being the legal heir of original owner/Mariyappan and thereafter, after the death of Rajaguru, patta has also been mutated in favour of their vendors and Ganesan. In that regard, this Court take judicial notice of the fact that patta stands mutated in favour of the legal heirs of the original owner. By applying the principle followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.39914 of 2024, referred supra, this Court is of the view that the very same principle can also be applied to the present facts of this case also.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned refusal check slip issued by the first respondent, dated 03.09.2026 is set aside.
As a consequence, the petitioners are directed to reproduce the document and on such production, the first respondent shall register the same, if it is otherwise in order. There shall be no order as to costs. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cmr To
1. The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Usilampatti, Madurai District.
2. The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.
K.KUMARESH BABU, J. cmr W.P.(MD)No.26287 of 2026 07-10-2026