Sakunthala Devi v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P. No.33093 of 2025 Sakunthala Devi Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thottathupalayam, Neruperichal, Thiruppur-641 666.

2.Ramasamy 3.Manimegalai Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the representation dated 18.06.2025 for cancellation of WILLs dated 17.09.2008 and 17.11.2020 bearing Doc. Nos.199/2000 and 171/2020 and settlement deed dated 25.04.2024 bearing Doc. No.1717/2024 as null and void. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Arvind Subramaniam Senior Advocate for Mr.Mohamed Sajid For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sasi Kumar Government Advocate

ORDER

1/4

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. In view of the order that this Court proposes to pass and also the limited relief that is sought to be granted, notice to respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with.

2. The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the representation dated 18.06.2025 for cancellation of Wills dated 17.09.2008 and 17.11.2020 bearing Doc. Nos.199/2000 and 171/2020 and settlement deed dated 25.04.2024 bearing Doc. No.1717/2024.

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for petitioner that petitioner submitted a representation on 18.06.2025 seeking cancellation of Wills executed by petitioner's mother dated 17.09.2008, 17.11.2020 and settlement deed dated 25.04.2024 bearing Document No.1717/2024, which is stated to be kept pending. Hence this writ petition.

4. At the outset, it is submitted by Mr.Sasi Kumar, learned Government Advocate for 1st respondent that Sub-Registrar may not have authority/jurisdiction/power to cancel the will/ settlement deed as sought for in 2/4

the representation dated 18.06.2025. He would further submit that in any view petitioner's representation would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law after affording the petitioner, respondents 2, 3 and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

5. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the appropriate respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording the petitioner, respondents 2, 3 and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing within a period of 16 weeks from the date of uploading for web copy without waiting for the receipt of certified copy. 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 concerned respondent to consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.08.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No mka MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

3/4

mka To:

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thottathupalayam, Neruperichal, Thiruppur-641 666.

12.08.2025 4/4