Mathuravalli @ Kumutha v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:25.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD).No.1849 of 2023 Mathuravalli @ Kumutha ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Sub Registrar, Joint Sub Registration Office-IV, Madurai South, Madurai District.

2.P.Murugadoss 3.A.Kumar 4.P.Sivagurunathan 5.M/s.SHriram Ciy Union Finance Limited, Thirumangalam Branch, represented by its Branch Manager, Office at D.No.6, Ilango Street, Sundar Nagar, Thirunagar, Madurai.

... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned registration of unilateral cancellation deed of settlement in Doc.No. 6411 of 2013 dated 19.06.2013 and consequently, direct the first respondent to 1/5

remove the entry of encumbrance regarding the said document in Book.No.1 of his office.

For Petitioner : Mr. H.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr. G.Suriya Ananth (for R1) Additional Government Pleader.

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to quash the impugned registration of unilateral cancellation deed of settlement in Doc.No.6411 of 2013 dated 19.06.2013 and consequently, to direct the first respondent to remove the entry of encumbrance regarding the said document in Book.No.1 of his office. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the second respondent are husband and wife. The property in Re.S.No.389/1 in Re.S.No.389/1A, in Door No.24 along with vacant land measuring to an extent of 542.37 sq. ft., belonged to the second respondent, which was inherited from his father. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was born on 18.01.2000. Thereafter, the second respondent had married another person namely, Babu Sindhu. In order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner and her daughter, the second respondent executed a settlement deed dated 03.02.2011 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner is paying 2/5

property tax every year. While being so, the electricity connection was disconnected by the official respondent without giving any notice to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the second respondent has unilaterally cancelled the settlement deed in Doc.No.6411 of 2018 dated 19.06.2013.

3.The issue relating to the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed has already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court. Therefore, the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is illegal. 4.In view of the above, the impugned registration of unilateral cancellation deed or settlement Deed passed by the first respondent in Doc.No.6411 of 2013 dated 19.06.2013, is hereby quashed. The first respondent is hereby directed to restore the original settlement deed. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5.With the above directions, this writ petitions stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed. 25.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes 3/5

vsg 4/5

S.SRIMATHY , J.

vsg To

1. The Sub Registrar, Joint Sub Registration Office-IV, Madurai South, Madurai District.

ORDER MADE IN DATED :25.08.2025 5/5