G.N.Anandan v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ G.N.Anandan Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration, O/o. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar, O/o. District Registrar Office, Erode District, Erode.
3.The Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Sub Registrar Office, Gopichettypalayam, Erode District.
Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip Number RFL/2 En Joint Sub Registrar Gopichettypalayam/57/2025 dated 26.06.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 3rd Respondent to accept and register the Settlement deed dated 18.06.2025. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Sengkodi For Respondent(s) : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader 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 challenging the refusal check slip whereby the settlement deed which was sought to be registered was rejected.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that his father and grandfather were the absolute owners of the subject property comprised in Survey Nos.444/1, 466/3B, 466/4, 468/8A, 462/5, 468/4, 445/12, 452/1. Petitioner's grandfather passed away on 16.07.2000 and petitioner's father passed away on 26.01.2019. It is stated that a Will was executed in favour of the petitioner on 05.07.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner made an online registration in the 3rd respondent official portal along with necessary documents for registration of settlement deed. However, the same was rejected on the premise that the settlement deed was on the basis of an unregistered Will and that the schedule in the will, parent document and settlement deed do not match. It is for this reason, the refusal slip was stated to have been issued. The learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that if afforded an opportunity, they will be 2/5
able to demonstrate that the above reason is factually incorrect and that the schedule in parent document, Will and the Settlement Deed in fact match.
4. At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents would submit that the petitioner may re-present the documents for registration, along with relevant documents and its response to the refusal slip. If any such settlement deed is re-presented, the same would be registered if it is otherwise in order.
5. In view thereof, the impugned order is set-aside. It is open to the petitioner to re-present the settlement deed before the appropriate respondent along with relevant documents and its response to the refusal slip. The registering authority shall consider the same, along with the documents submitted and response to the refusal slip, and register the settlement deed if it is otherwise in order, if for any reason the settlement deed is sought to be refused, the registering authority would do so after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and assigning reason for such refusal. 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.
3/5
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 11.07.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No mka To:
1.The Inspector General of Registration, O/o The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar, O/o. District Registrar Office, Erode District, Erode.
3.The Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Sub Registrar Office, Gopichettypalayam, Erode District.
4/5
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
mka 11.07.2025 5/5