Parties may appeal document registration refusals to the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act.

The appellant (writ petitioner) filed W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026 challenging Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Sankarankovil/63/2026 dated 17.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent/Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil, and sought a direction to register a settlement deed dated 17.06.2026 executed in her favour by one Madathiyammal, concerning the undivided share in properties comprised in Survey Nos.752, 739/2, 740 and 741, South Sankarankovil Village, Tenkasi District.

The Sub Registrar refused registration on two grounds: (i) failure to produce the legal heirship certificate of Karuppiah Mooppanar, whom the vendor claimed as her father, and (ii) failure to produce the original parent document.

By order dated 02.07.2026, the learned Single Judge held that the objection regarding the parent document was unsustainable and directed registration dehors its production, but upheld the requirement of producing the legal heirship certificate.

In an earlier proceeding, W.P.(MD) No.8969 of 2026 dated 02.04.2026, a grandson of Karuppiah Mooppanar had claimed that the deceased had three sons — Periyasamy Mooppanar, Seenisamy Mooppanar and Arumugasamy Mooppanar — with no mention of any daughter.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge's observation mandating production of the legal heirship certificate of Karuppiah Mooppanar as a precondition for registration of the settlement deed is sustainable in law.

2. Whether the appellant ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, instead of pursuing a writ remedy, given the disputed questions of fact regarding heirship.

Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides a statutory appeal to the Registrar against an order of the Sub Registrar refusing registration, with a prescribed limitation of 30 days from the refusal.

Relating to the principle that where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists and disputed questions of fact arise — here, the competing claims as to the legal heirs of Karuppiah Mooppanar — the writ court should refrain from adjudication on merits and relegate the party to the statutory forum.

The Division Bench consciously declined to examine the merits, reasoning that any refusal by the Sub Registrar is appealable before the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Court found this irreconcilable with the averments in W.P.(MD) No.8969 of 2026, where a grandson of Karuppiah Mooppanar asserted the existence of three sons and made no reference to any daughter.

This conflicting factual matrix concerning the vendor's status and heirship rendered the controversy unsuitable for determination in writ jurisdiction; the appropriate course was re-examination by the Registrar on the facts presented by the appellant.

The Court requested the appellant to file an appeal before the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, and seek re-examination of the entire issue on the basis of the facts presented.

The Court extended the time for filing the appeal by a further period of two weeks from the date of uploading of the order.