← Library
Madras High CourtWP/4297/2026disposed of

R.Rajkumar, v. District Registrar,

2026-02-17Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY R.Rajkumar, S/o. Ramasamy, No. 2/868F, S R Nagar South, Andipalayam, Tiruppur -641 687.

..Petitioner Vs

1. District Registrar, No. 1/529, Nerupperichal Village, Pooluvapatti Post, Tiruppur -641 602.

2. The Sub Registrar, Avinashi, Tirupur District.

3. Inspector of Police, CBCID-North, Namakkal.

4. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai -600 028.

..Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Refusal Check Slip bearing Refusal Number vide RFL/Avinashi/1/2026 dated 27.01.2026 issued vide Proceedings in Se.Mu.Aa.No. 439/2025-2, dated 27.01.2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, and illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the settlement deed dated 24.01.2026 executed by the Petitioner in favour Mrs.R.Saraswathi bearing Temporary No. TP/246157546/2026 forthwith.

For Petitioner:

Mr. G.Rajagopalan, senior counsel for Mr. D.G.Hariprasath For Respondents:

Ms.Akila Rajendran, Govt. Advocate for R1, R2 & R4 Mr.S.Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor for R3

ORDER

Asserting title under a series of sale deeds dated 03.12.2022, as per details set out in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the petitioner executed settlement deed dated 24.01.2026 in favour of his wife, Mrs.R.Saraswathi, and presented the same for registration. The request for registration was declined under the

impugned refusal check slip dated 27.01.2026 by referring to the registration of FIR No.2/2025.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of such FIR is not a bar against registration. Therefore, he submits that the impugned refusal check slip is liable to be set aside.

3. Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for the third respondent. In all fairness, learned Government Advocate submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and reconsideration is warranted.

4. The settled legal position is that a request for registration cannot be declined on the ground of pending criminal proceedings or on the basis of a letter issued by the Inspector of Police. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there is no reference therein to any order of Court restraining the registration of conveyances. Hence, the order is unsustainable and is hereby set aside.

5. As a corollary, the petitioner is permitted to re-present the settlement deed for registration. If the document is re-presented within two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to fulfilment of other requirements relating to registration, the registering officer shall register the document within two weeks from the date of re-presentation unless an order restraining registration were to be received in the meantime.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs.

17-02-2026 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No kj

To

1. District Registrar, No. 1/529, Nerupperichal Village, Pooluvapatti Post, Tiruppur -641 602.

2.The Sub Registrar, Avinashi, Tirupur District.

3.Inspector of Police, CBCID-North, Namakkal.

4.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai -600 028.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

KJ 17-02-2026