THIMMAKKA Vs The Sub Registrar

Thimmakka vs The Sub Registrar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 11, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1418815

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1418815
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose
Decided On: Mar 11, 2026
Case Number: WP/9142/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thimmakka

Respondent

The Sub Registrar

Excerpt

.....check slip, the petitioner was not afforded of any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order. neither the petitioner’s contentions nor the supporting documents page2 of 5 produced by her were considered in the impugned order. being a non-speakingorder with regard to the petitioner’s contentions and the supporting documentsproduced by her, and an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.05.2025 issued by the 1st respondent has to be quashed and the matter remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.5.accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:-(a) the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.05.2025 is quashed by this court and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.(b) the petitioner shall submit a written explanation tothe 1st respondent within a period of two weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as to why the 1 st respondent has to accept the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration, along with supporting documents.(c) on receipt of the same within the time stipulated, the respondent, after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner along with page3 of 5supporting documents, shall take a final decision with regard to registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter.(d) if the 1st respondent decides to refuse to register thesale deed, the 1st respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by him.(e) however, there shall be no order as to costs. 11-03-2026 index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation:.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Thimmakka W/o.Late.Kailappa alias Kavilappa No.5/1017, Punnagaram village Athimugam post Shoolagiri Taluk ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Sub Registrar Shoolagiri Sub Registrar office
2. M.Durai
S/o.Munusamy No.1/1674 Tamilnadu Housing Board Vennampatti Lakkiyampatti post Dharmapuri Taluk and District. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of refusal check slip executed by the petitioner to her sons in Refusal Numbers RFL/Shoolagiri/26/2025 RFL/Shoolagiri/27/2025 and RFL/Shoolagiri /28/2025 dated 29.05.2025 passed by the 1 st respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register the settlement deeds. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader (for R1) Page1 of 5

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.05.2025 issued by the 1st respondent refusing to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that in respect of very same property, there is already an encumbrance.

2.The petitioner also categorically contends that even though there is an encumbrance, she is the absolute owner of the property. She also claims that patta also stands in her name. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned refusal check slip on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was granted by the 1 st respondent prior to the issuance of the impugned refusal check slip.

3.Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. Since no adverse orders are passed as against the 2nd respondent, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with by this Court. 4.As seen from the impugned refusal check slip, the petitioner was not afforded of any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order. Neither the petitioner’s contentions nor the supporting documents Page2 of 5 produced by her were considered in the impugned order. Being a non-speaking

order with regard to the petitioner’s contentions and the supporting documents

produced by her, and an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.05.2025 issued by the 1st respondent has to be quashed and the matter remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:-

(a) The impugned refusal check slip dated 29.05.2025 is quashed by this Court and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

(b) The petitioner shall submit a written explanation to

the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as to why the 1 st respondent has to accept the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration, along with supporting documents.

(c) On receipt of the same within the time stipulated, the respondent, after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner along with Page3 of 5

supporting documents, shall take a final decision with regard to registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

(d) If the 1st respondent decides to refuse to register the

sale deed, the 1st respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by him.

(e) However, there shall be no order as to costs. 11-03-2026 Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No GSA To The Sub Registrar Shoolagiri Sub Registrar office Page4 of 5

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

GSA 11-03-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Thimmakka vs The Sub Registrar Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose