W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 1.Rajeswari 2.Seethalakshmi ... Petitioners /vs./ 1.The District Registrar, Palani Registration District, Palani, Dindigul District. 2.The Joint I Sub Registrar, Palani Sub Registrar Office, Palani, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/No.1 Joint Sub Registrar Palani/53/2026 dated 23.06.2026 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 22.06.2026 presented by the petitioner for registration. For Petitioners : Ms.Subiksha 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu ORDER Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondents. 2.By consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3.The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned refusal check slip dated 23.06.2026 issued by the second respondent in his proceedings bearing Ref.No.RFL/No.1 Joint Sub Registrar Palani/53/2026. 4.By the impugned refusal check slip, the proposal to register a sale deed dated 22.06.2026 executed in favour of one Manonmani has been refused with the following observations:- 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 5.The property was originally purchased by the petitioner's husband, namely, Ramasamy (since deceased), vide sale deed dated 24.01.2013 registered as Doc.No.159 of 2013. The petitioner's husband purchased the property from one Ethiraj, who had earlier purchased the very same property from one Rajendran, who had plotted an extent of 8.25 acres pursuant to a partition deed dated 14.02.1986 registered as Doc.No.207/1986. 6.The said Rajendran along with his brothers, namely, Kanagaraj and Ravichandran, were given share in the said partition deed. The partition deed was executed between the three brothers, namely, Rajendran, Kanakaraj, and Ravichandran excluding the two sisters, namely, Kalavathi and Bala Nagammal. Pursuant to the aforesaid partition dated 14.02.1986, the entire extent of land has been alienated in part and parcel to different purchasers, who, in turn, have also made further alienations. 7.It appears that the petitioner's vendor's sister, namely, Kalavathi, had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Arul Kumaran for sale of the land. It appears that the said Kalavathi had claimed right over the land pursuant to a Will said to have been executed by late.Ramasubbu. This was a 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 subject matter of a suit in OS.No.265 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Palani. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.04.2023. In the said decree, the trial Court has recognized the rights of the daughters over the property. 8.Taking note of the complications arising out of the peculiar facts of this case, under similar circumstances, this Court had passed an order earlier in WP.(MD) No.24895 of 2024, which was filed on behalf of about 40 different alienees pursuant to the partition deed dated 14.02.1986 registered as Doc.No.207/1986. By an order dated 21.10.2024, this Court, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered as under:- “5.Originally, the property was owned by one Ramasubbu. He had three sons and two daughters. A partition deed has been entered among his sons on 14.02.1986. The daughters were not included in the partition deed. Be that as it may, now the daughter claimed an independent title on the basis of the Will, which was rejected by the trial court. The daughter has not filed a separate suit for partition till now. 6.Be that as it may, the petitioners' predecessors purchased the subject property on the basis of the allotment made to one of the co- owners, namely Rajendran vide partition deed dated 14.02.1986. Based on that purchase, it appears that a layout has already been developed and the property has been dealt with. Several purchasers including the petitioners have purchased the property to an extent of 3 to 5 cents each. Therefore, even assuming that there was no valid partition, this Court is of the view that it cannot be a ground to be a total bar to sell all the properties. Such being the position, as long as 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 no partition suit is filed by the other co-owner in respect of the property already dealt with and purchased by several persons, those persons cannot be denied their right of enjoyment of their property. It is for the concerned parties to claim necessary partition before the competent civil Court. The petitioners having purchased the properties long back, they are entitled to claim equity even in the event of shares have been allotted to the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.265 of 2014. 7.In such view of he matter, this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.08.2024 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to continue the registration of the subject properties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 9.This order was also followed in yet another case arising out of the same transaction in K.Mariappan Vs. The District Registrar, W.P.(MD) No. 15763 of 2026, dated 11.06.2026. This writ petition was allowed with the following directions:- “8. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (i) The impugned refusal check slip, dated29.05.2026, shall stand set aside; (ii) The petitioner shall represent the document within three weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order; (iii) Upon such representation, the same shall be registered, if there is no other impediment; (iv) The transaction of the petitioner shall ultimately be subject to the observations made in W.P(MD)No.24895 of 2024, and the transactions shall be subject to the final result in the suit, if any that may be filed by the daughters. (v) No costs ” 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 10.The facts of the present case are identical and in fact arise from the same partition deed as mentioned above. The petitioner is unable to ascertain the addresses of the legal heirs of the said Kalavathi and Bala Nagammal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs. The Sub Registrar and others, 2025 INSC 462, has observed as under:- “15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.” 11.Taking note of the march of law in the facts of the case pursuant to the partition deed dated 14.02.1986 and the two decisions of this Court and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that this writ 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 petition has to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that all alienations will be subject to the rights of the legal heirs of the said Kalavathi and Bala Nagammal. No costs. Index : Yes / No 01.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No mm To 1.The District Registrar, Palani Registration District, Palani, Dindigul District. 2.The Joint I Sub Registrar, Palani Sub Registrar Office, Palani, Dindigul District. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 C.SARAVANAN, J. mm W.P.(MD) No.18194 of 2026 01.07.2026 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis