Registration of a disputed property deed requires a civil court decree resolving competing title claims.

The petitioner claimed title to lands in Survey Nos. 95/2A and 33/1 through a registered Will executed in 1965 by Rathinammal, who had purchased the lands under sale deeds registered in 1944 and 1948.

He presented a settlement deed in favour of his son, but the Sub-Registrar returned it by a refusal check slip, citing discrepancies in the property records and the absence of a patta in the petitioner’s name.

The Tahsildar had previously rejected the petitioner’s patta application, and that decision was under appeal.

Respondents 3–7 claimed interests in the lands through separate transactions and relied on patta entries in their favour.

The petitioner challenged the refusal check slip under Article 226.

Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration on the basis that the petitioner lacked a patta in his name.

Whether the petitioner’s claimed title and the competing claims could be determined in the writ proceedings so as to direct registration of the settlement deed.

Under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, a patta is not a mandatory prerequisite to registration.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in N. Ramayee v. The Sub Registrar, Salem and Another, W.P. No. 674 of 2020, the Court stated that a registering officer generally cannot determine title and has no power to refuse registration except as authorised by the applicable statutory provisions, including Section 22-A of the Registration Act; the registration process serves to give public notice of transactions.

The Court also relied on Anitha v. Axelin Thiraviyam and Others, W.A.(MD) No. 3205 of 2025, in identifying civil proceedings as the appropriate forum to seek declarations concerning the validity of competing documents.

The refusal was based on the petitioner’s lack of patta, although the Court noted that patta is not, by itself, a mandatory condition for registration.

The parties traced their claims to competing transactions, and the records disclosed conflicting pattas, registrations, and assertions of possession. The Court considered that conflict a title dispute which could not be conclusively resolved in writ proceedings; the parties’ respective title and possession claims required determination by a competent civil court.

Accordingly, it left those disputes open and made registration conditional on obtaining an appropriate civil-court decree.

The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the settlement deed only after the petitioner or the private respondents, as the case may be, obtained an appropriate decree from the competent civil court.

The parties were left to pursue their remedies there, including seeking declarations concerning the identified documents; no costs were awarded.