RAMAKRISHNAN vs THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

WP No. 44595 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
WP No. 44595 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012540112026}
Ramakrishnan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No. 100 Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Bagalur, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District 635 103.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records
relating to the impugned Refusal check slip issued by the 2nd respondent
bearing Refusal Number RFL/ BAGALUR/ 59/ 2026 dated 13.10.2026 and
index page Refusal Number RFL/ BAGALUR/ 62/ 2026 dated 13.10.2026 and
quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to register the
sale deed executed by the petitioner on 09.10.2026.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Suresh Kumar for
Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy
For Respondent(s): Mr.Dominic S.David,
Special Government Pleader.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

WP No. 44595 of 2026
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the refusal check slip dated
13.10.2026, whereby Sale Deed dated 09.10.2026, presented in respect of
property comprised in Survey No.883/1, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 14
cents, situated at Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, was refused
registration on the premise that second respondent entertains a doubt with
regard to petitioner's title.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that refusal
check slip is primarily challenged on the ground that the reason assigned
therein, viz., existence of a doubt regarding petitioner's title, is beyond the
jurisdiction of Registering Authority. In support of his submission, reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi v. The Sub-
Registrar and Others, reported in AIR 2025 SC 1800 , wherein it was
categorically held that jurisdiction of Registration Authority does not extend to
examining or conducting an enquiry into the title of executant. Legal position in
this regard is well settled. Relevant portions of the said judgment read as
follows:
“18. 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,
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

WP No. 44595 of 2026
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.
19. 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.”
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that the present
Sale Deed pertains to an extent of 2.14 acres comprised in Survey No.883/1,
Part, situated at Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. Originally,
petitioner claims to have acquired title to a larger extent of 8.01 acres comprised
in Survey No.883, situated at Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, which belonged
to one Goopalliyappa @ Goopaligan and his family. It is stated that the said
property was orally partitioned among three sons in respect of aforesaid survey
number. He would submit that petitioner had purchased the lands under
registered Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos.17117/2007, 17118/2007,
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

WP No. 44595 of 2026
17119/2007 and 17120/2007 from respective vendors and presents owns an
entire extent of 8.01 acres. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit
that out of total extent of 8.01 acres, an extent of 5.86 acres was subsequently
sold by petitioner to one Gopal and four others under a Sale Deed registered as
Document No.323/2008, while retaining remaining extent of 2.14 acres. It is
further submitted that patta in respect of subject property also stands in the
name of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner had
thereafter presented a Sale Deed for registration on 13.10.2026 in favour of
Tamil Selvan Kandasamy in respect of the remaining extent of 2.14 acres.
However, the same was refused registration by second respondent, referring to
certain entries in the Encumbrance Certificate, including Document
Nos.2249/1979, 3019/1979, 424/1983, 7253/2006 and 12759/2007. Learned
counsel would contend that none of the aforesaid documents relate to the
subject property and in any view have no bearing whatsoever on his right, title
or interest over the subject property. Therefore, respondents cannot entertaining
a doubt regarding petitioner's title on the basis of aforesaid entries is baseless,
more importantly Registering Authority is not vested with the jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon questions of title.
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

WP No. 44595 of 2026
5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents would,
however, supplement the reasons by submitting that the doubt was entertained
only in view of the fact that the subsequent purchasers in respect of extent of
5.86 acres had gifted certain portions of property to Government, in terms of
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, for the purpose of formation of
roads, OSR, etc. He would submit that, in any view, the writ petition is
premature inasmuch as it is only a refusal check slip. Petitioner may submit his
response/objections, along with relevant supporting documents, before second
respondent. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed on the order of
the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21941 of 2025, dated 28.10.2025.
Relevant observations are extracted hereunder:
“13. Pertinently, at initial stage of issuance of a refusal slip by
Registering Authority, civil rights or right of presentant of a
document for registration cannot be determined either by
Registering Authority or by Writ Court. It is a preliminary stage,
where they are bound to call for explanation from presentant of
document, along with supportive documents, if any, and an
adjudicatory process is to be undertaken to arrive at a final
decision, enabling an aggrieved person to approach Appellate
Authority and thereafter Civil Court under Sections 72 and 77 of
Act respectively.
14. Under Sections 71 and 72 of Registration Act, neither
Registering Authority nor Appellate Authority is empowered to
decide title, ownership, or civil rights between parties. Extent of
inquiry is to be confined so as to find out whether document
presented under Act can be registered or refused. Therefore,
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

WP No. 44595 of 2026
Registering Authority is not empowered to go into merits of case
and decide title, ownership, or civil rights between parties.
15. Any inquiry or findings made thereunder are to be confined
only to an extent of registration of a document, and findings by
Registering Authority or Appellate Authority cannot be taken into
consideration for purpose of determining civil rights between
parties.
6. This Court, on consideration of submissions advanced by learned
counsel on either side, finds that there can be no two views on the settled legal
position that Registering Authority is not vested with jurisdiction to go into the
question of title while a Sale Deed is presented for registration. The said
position stands conclusively settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in K. Gopi (supra) . This Court also finds that there is a reference to certain
Court orders in the refusal check slip. However, no particulars of such orders
have been furnished therein, enabling petitioner to ascertain the nature and
relevance of those proceedings.
7. In the circumstances, it is open to the respondents, if any such Court
orders exist and are relevant to the subject property, to furnish copies of the
same to petitioner. Petitioner shall thereafter re-present the Sale Deed along
with his response/objections and relevant supporting documents. On such re-
presentation, second respondent shall consider the response/objections of
petitioner as well as objectors, if any, and proceed with registration of Sale
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

WP No. 44595 of 2026
Deed, if it is otherwise in order and in accordance with law, keeping in view the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi (supra) , particularly
with regard to the limitations on the scope and extent of powers of Registering
Authority. In the event of second respondent refusing to register the Sale Deed
for any reason, the same shall be returned to petitioner by issuing a reasoned
refusal order setting out the grounds therefor. It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim or objections raised by
either side. Second respondent shall consider the matter on its own merits and in
accordance with law.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
03-11-2026
SHK
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No. 100 Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Bagalur, Hosur,
Krishnagiri District 635 103.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

WP No. 44595 of 2026
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
SHK
WP No. 44595 of 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )