Thulasiyammal v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.12.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No. 29959 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos. 33589 of 2025 Thulasiyammal

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Sub-Regsitrar, Periyanayakan palayam, Coimbatore - 641 020.

...Respondent

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings No.RFL/PERIYANAYAKKAN PALAYAM/55/2025 dated 04.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal, null and void and consequently direct the respondent to register the cancellation of settlement deed dated 30.06.2025 presented by the petitioner and return the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner's late husband had executed a settlement deed in her favour on 26.02.2008. The said document was registered as Document No.2811 of 2008. It pertains to a total extent of 3.23 acres. Later, the petitioner's husband died on 30.01.2021, leaving behind the petitioner, her daughter Padmavathy, her younger son Marimuthu and the wife and children of her deceased elder son as the legal heirs. Based on an understanding reached between all the legal heirs of the late Rangasamy, a cancellation deed dated 30.06.2025 was presented for registration. The request for cancellation was rejected under the impugned refusal check slip.

2. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was issued without appreciating the fact that the cancellation deed was executed by the beneficiary under the settlement deed. He submits that the Sub-Registrar rejected the request merely because other individuals joined in the execution of the cancellation deed.

3. Learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the sole respondent. He submits that the matter may warrant re-consideration.

4. On perusal of the impugned refusal check slip, it is evident that the order was issued on the ground that the settlement took effect from the date of execution thereof. The Sub-Registrar was correct in recording that the settlement took effect from 26.02.2008. As a consequence thereof, the properties stood vested in the name of Thulasiyammal. The cancellation deed has been submitted by the said Thulasiyammal along with other legal heirs of late Rangasamy.

5. By virtue of the fact that the property stood settled in the name of Thulasiyammal under settlement deed dated 26.02.2008, it is open to Thulasiyammal to deal with the property, including by executing a settlement deed in favour of the other legal heirs of the late Rangasamy.

6. By leaving it open to the petitioner to execute an appropriate instrument for the said purpose and present the same for registration, this Writ Petition is disposed of. In the alternative, it will also be open to the members of the family to effect a family arrangement and thereafter, record the same in writing. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.12.2025 NCC: No Index : No Speaking Order : Yes kkn

To The Sub-Regsitrar, Periyanayakan palayam, Coimbatore - 641 020.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

KKN 11.12.2025