C.Manickam v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P. No.21662 of 2025 C. Manickam ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Palacode, Dharmapuri District.

... Respondent(s) 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 relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Palacode/Bk 2/2 dated 23.04.2025 issued by the respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 12.02.2025 (P.Doc.No.7/Bk.II/2025).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent(s) : Ms.Bakkiyalakshmi Government Advocate 1/5

ORDER

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Palacode/Bk 2/2 dated 23.04.2025, issued by the respondent and to consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 12.02.2025.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property comprised in SF No.178/1, admeasuring 2.50 acres bearing Patta No.104. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 1997 for declaration and permanent injunction on 11.04.1997. The suit was decreed in favour of petitioner on 28.04.2000 and the decree was registered as Doc.No.6075 of 2024 on the file of the respondent. 3.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner to settle the subject property in favour of his Son M.Madhappan executed a settlement deed dated 12.02.2025 and the same was registered as Pending Doc.No.7/Bk II/2025. However, the respondent refused to register the settlement deed and issued a Refusal Check Slip on the premise that there is a 2/5

permanent injunction operating against the petitioner. 3.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as a matter of fact it was the petitioner who had filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 1997 praying for a permanent injunction in respect of the subject property and the suit has also been decreed in petitioner's favour. It was thus submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been made on a gross non application of mind.

4. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner may re-present the Settlement Deed along with the decree of the suit in O.S.No.92 of 1997. Thereafter, the Settlement Deed would be registered, if it is otherwise in order, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In view thereof, the petitioner is directed to re-present the Settlement Deed along with decree of the suit in O.S.No.92 of 1997. Thereafter, the respondent shall register the settlement deed, if it is otherwise in order. If for any reasons the same is sought to be rejected, the respondent would do so after issuing refusal slip assigning reasons. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the 3/5

concerned respondent to consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 19.06.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No spp To:

The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Palacode, Dharmapuri District.

4/5

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

spp W.P. No.21662 of 2025 19.06.2025 5/5