A Sub-Registrar must consider objections and supporting documents before deciding whether to register a sale certificate.

The petitioner challenged a refusal check slip dated 1 November 2025, by which the Sub-Registrar declined to register a sale certificate dated 16 October 2025.

The refusal was based on a communication from the Central Crime Branch, Avadi, requesting that registration of the property not proceed.

The petitioner argued that a police communication alone could not justify refusal, relying on W.P. No. 12289 of 2020. The State submitted that the petition was premature because the petitioner could respond to the refusal slip and provide supporting documents, relying on W.P. No. 21941 of 2025.

Under Sections 71 and 72 of the Registration Act, the registering and appellate authorities’ inquiry is confined to whether a document may be registered or refused; they cannot determine title, ownership, or civil rights between parties. An aggrieved person may pursue the statutory remedies, including recourse to the civil court under Section 77.

The Court also referred to W.P. No. 12289 of 2020, which held that a police letter, without a proper attachment order by a competent authority, does not by itself justify refusal to register a sale certificate.

The Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 21941 of 2025 was cited for the principle that a refusal slip is a preliminary stage at which the presentant may provide an explanation and supporting documents, followed by an adjudicatory decision.

The Court did not decide whether the police communication legally justified refusing registration on the merits.

Instead, taking account of the Division Bench’s observations on the preliminary nature of a refusal slip, it allowed the petitioner to re-present the sale certificate with its response and supporting materials.

The registering authority must consider those materials and any objections, apply the principles in W.P. No. 12289 of 2020, and decide the matter in accordance with law. The Court expressly left the merits of the parties’ claims and objections open.

The registering authority was directed to consider the material and any objections and register the certificate if it was otherwise in order; if refusing registration, it must issue a reasoned refusal order.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of either side’s claim or objections. No costs were awarded.