Mandamus cannot compel registration of a sale agreement not timely presented after subsequent alienation.

The petitioner and the third respondent entered into a sale agreement dated 11 November 2013 concerning several properties for a stated consideration of ₹7 crore.

After the Sub-Registrar refused registration, both parties successfully challenged that refusal in an earlier writ petition.

By order dated 15 February 2019, the Court directed registration subject to adjudication and payment of the applicable deficit stamp duty and registration charges.

The parties did not present the agreement for registration in response to subsequent notices.

The petitioner later presented it on 13 October 2025, after the third respondent had sold the property to a third party on 3 October 2024.

The Sub-Registrar issued a refusal check slip, and the District Registrar rejected the petitioner’s appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that no formal refusal order had been entered in Book No. 2.

The petitioner sought certiorari and a direction to register the agreement without the third respondent’s presence.

Whether the petitioner could obtain a direction requiring registration of the 2013 sale agreement despite failing to present it within a reasonable time after the 2019 order and the subsequent alienation of the property.

Whether the Sub-Registrar could be directed to register the agreement in the absence of the executant, given the requirements of the Registration Act and the disputed claims arising from the subsequent arrangement and sale.

Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, govern presentation of documents and the appearance of executants, persons claiming under the document, or their authorised representatives before registration; the proviso to Section 34 permits delayed appearance only in specified circumstances and subject to the prescribed fine.

The Court treated the agreement as compulsorily registrable under Section 17 and considered Section 49, which generally restricts the use of an unregistered instrument required to be registered, while permitting its use as evidence of a contract in a specific-performance suit or of a collateral transaction.

The Court also relied on Anitha v. Axelin Thiraviyam, W.A.(MD) No. 3205 of 2025, dated 4 December 2025, concerning judicial restraint in title disputes and the impermissibility of directing registration that would result in competing registrations while third-party title claims remain unresolved.

The earlier order did not dispense with the statutory requirements for presentation and appearance; the petitioner and the third respondent failed to act on the notices issued after that order, and the petitioner presented the document only in 2025.

By then, the property had been conveyed to a third party, and the executant was absent. In light of Sections 32 and 34, the Court declined to compel registration in those circumstances.

It further held that the legal effect of the 2018 memorandum of understanding, the parties’ contractual rights, and the consequences of the 2024 sale raised disputed matters for the Civil Court, not for determination in writ proceedings.

The petitioner could rely on the statutory exception in Section 49 to seek appropriate civil relief, including specific performance, if available.

It left the petitioner at liberty to pursue remedies available in law before the competent Civil Court against the third respondent, including recovery of amounts allegedly paid and other appropriate relief.

No costs were ordered.