(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip No. RFL/Sankarankovil/64/2026 dated 17.06.2026, quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 17.06.2026 in favour of the petitioner in respect of her undivided share in the properties comprised in Survey Nos.752, 739/2, 740 and 741, situated at South Sankarankovil Village, Tenkasi District.)

1. Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondents.

2. By consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the third respondent bearing Ref.No.RFL/Sankarankovil/64/2026 dated 17.06.2026.

4. By the impugned Refusal Check Slip, the registration of the Sale Deed dated 17.06.2026 executed by one Thirumalaiammal in favour of the petitioner has been refused for the following reasons:

                  

                  

5. A reading of the above indicates that two specific grounds have been assigned in the impugned Refusal Check Slip for refusing registration of the Sale Deed dated 17.06.2026, viz., (i) failure to produce the Legal Heirship Certificate of late Karuppiah Moopanar; and (ii) failure to produce the original parent document.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that insofar as the production of the original parent document is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub Registrar and Others, Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 462, wherein, while dealing with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

                   “15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub- Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

                   16. Therefore, assuming that there is a power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act to frame the Rules, Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) will have to be declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. The rulemaking power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule 55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act.

                   17. As the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court, relying on Rule 55A(i), and since Rule 55A(i) is held to be invalid, the impugned judgments must be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.”

7. In M/s.Dugars v. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Registration Department and Others, rendered on 23.06.2026 in W.P.(MD) No.7415 of 2026 etc. batch, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court declared Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908, inserted by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2026, which mandates the production of original documents, as ultra vires and struck down the same. To that extent, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits consideration.

8. As far as the failure to produce the Legal Heirship Certificate is concerned, the same cannot be condoned. The mere production of a selfserving affidavit stating that the said Thirumalaiammal is one of the legal heirs of late Karuppiah Moopanar, who died on 16.09.1984, is not sufficient. The said Thirumalaiammal has to substantiate her claim to the property by producing a proper Legal Heirship Certificate and a Partition Deed partitioning the extent of the property among the legal heirs. Although the Sub Registrar's Office is not concerned with the legality of the title, when there is no clear partition among the members claiming rights through the same ancestor, registration cannot be permitted, as it would create confusion among the co-owners. The said Thirumalaiammal has to obtain a Legal Heirship Certificate in respect of late Karuppiah Moopanar and also produce a Partition Deed executed among the legal heirs of late Karuppiah Moopanar clearly demarcating their respective shares and boundaries.

9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to re-present the document along with the Legal Heirship Certificate of late Karuppiah Moopanar and a Partition Deed clearly demarcating the boundaries of the property. There shall be no order as to costs.