Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable where the Registration Act provides efficacious remedies under Sections 72 and 77.

The respondent, acting as power agent of Mookkammal, sought registration of a sale agreement dated 20 March 2025 concerning land in Survey Nos. 191 and 193, V.M. Chatram Village, Tirunelveli District, and consequential registration of the sale deed.

The Sub-Registrar issued a Refusal Check Slip on the ground that the property had already been dealt with under a registered sale deed of 1885 and a registered partition deed dated 29 June 2012, and that registering the respondent’s document would result in a “double entry” and create confusion.

The respondent claimed title through a sale deed dated 2 August 1890 and alleged that the 2012 partition deed was fraudulent; he also referred to a criminal complaint allegedly registered in Crime No. 37 of 2015.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed registration of the sale agreement, with an endorsement of “double entry” in the relevant records.

The Registration Department challenged that order in the present writ appeal.

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 72 and the further remedy under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908?

2. Whether the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing registration where competing registered documents, disputed title, possible temple/endowment claims, and uncertainty regarding the identity of the property existed?

3. Whether the learned Single Judge could direct registration of the document with an endorsement of “double entry” in the registration records?

The Court applied the principle that the existence of an alternative remedy ordinarily persuades a High Court not to exercise its writ jurisdiction, but does not constitute an absolute bar where there is violation of natural justice, breach of fundamental rights, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of legislation, as recognised in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Aarshita Jain v. Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), 2023:MHC:3224.

Under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, an appeal lies to the Registrar against a Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register a document on grounds other than denial of execution; Sections 75–77 provide the procedure and a statutory civil suit where the Registrar refuses registration.

Rules 166 and 167 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules prescribe the procedure for presenting such an appeal.

The Court also considered Section 22A of the Act concerning restrictions on registration of documents relating to property connected with religious institutions or endowments, and relied on Sudha Ravi Kumar v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner, HR & CE Department, AIR 2017 Mad 203.

The Court further held that the Registration Act and Rules do not recognise an independent procedure for registering a document while merely recording it as a “double entry”.

The refusal was not based on denial of execution but on the existence of competing title documents and the possibility that registration would create conflicting entries. Accordingly, Section 72 provided a specific appellate remedy, followed, if necessary, by a statutory suit under Section 77.

None of the recognised exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule was established: the respondent did not demonstrate violation of natural justice, infringement of fundamental rights, excess of jurisdiction, or invalidity of the statute.

The Court also found that the dispute required an evidentiary examination unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.

The parties relied on century-old deeds, each describing the properties only by boundaries; the respondent had not produced the original 1890 deed, satisfactory intervening revenue records, or material establishing that the property in that deed corresponded to the land described in the 2025 agreement.

The Town Survey Numbers were also absent from the agreement, while the TSLR entries referred to a religious endowment and temple, potentially attracting Section 22A.

These circumstances made a factual determination of title, identity, possession, and possible endowment rights necessary, which could not properly be undertaken in writ proceedings.

Finally, the direction to register the document with a “double entry” endorsement had no recognised statutory basis.

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the remedies under Sections 72 and 77 of the Registration Act, 1908.

However, in the interests of justice, the respondent was permitted to file a Section 72 appeal against the Refusal Check Slip within 30 days from receipt of the judgment; the appellate authority was directed to take it on file if otherwise in order, without treating limitation as an impediment, and decide it uninfluenced by the High Court’s merits observations.

The stay and vacate petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.