S.Palani v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 10.07.2025 Order pronounced on: 08.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ S.Palani ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Pattinampakkam, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.
2. Sub-Registrar, Arcot, Kalavai Road, Arcot 632 503.
Walajah Taluk, Ranipet District.
3. Mrs.R.Priya Lakshmi
4. Mrs.R.Preethi Lakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in RFL/Arcot/23/2025, dated 28.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in the law and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to register the settlement deed dated 28.04.2025 and release the registered settlement deed to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.
1/5
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.Vijayan for Mr.K.Kulandaivelu For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abishek Murthy, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.A.Maheshnath, for R3 & R4
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the refusal check slip dated 28.04.2025, whereby the settlement deed presented by petitioner on 28.04.2025 was refused registration on the premise that examination of the revenue records including encumbrance certificate would suggest that ownership over the subject property comprised in Punjai Survey Nos.355/1A and 355/1B1 is claimed by more than one person/entity.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that impugned order which proceeds to refuse registration of settlement deed by making enquiry into the title of the subject property is beyond and an excess of jurisdiction of the respondent registration authorities and thus unsustainable.
3. To the contrary, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that a partition suit in OS.No.11 of 2015 in respect of the subject property 2/5
is pending before the Sub Court, Ranipet, wherein inter alia a challenge is made to the sale deed dated 21.02.2014 registered as Document No. 1382 of 2014 as a fraudulent document created by Mrs.Padma.
4. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would further submit that since the question of cancellation of sale deeds are involved which this Court has held is beyond the domain of registration authorities and would fall within the jurisdiction of competent Civil Court, the impugned refusal slip may not warrant interference.
5. To a question as to whether the petitioner had opportunity to put forth his explanation for the reasons contained in the refusal slip, both the counsel for petitioner and respondents answered in the negative.
6. In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to represent the settlement deed along with explanation to the reasons set out in the refusal slip. On such representation, the appropriate authority after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall proceed to register the settlement deed if it is otherwise in order. If after considering the petitioner's representation and after affording an opportunity of hearing if the authorities are 3/5
still of the view that the settlement deed dated 28.04.2025 ought not to be registered they shall pass an appropriate order recording the reasons for the same and it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
7. With the above observation and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
08.10.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No pvs To:
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Pattinampakkam, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Arcot, Kalavai Road, Arcot 632 503.
Walajah Taluk, Ranipet District.
4/5
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
pvs 08.10.2025 5/5