Govendhan v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY 1.Govendhan 2.Lokiya ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Vellipattinam Sub Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to register the petitioners' settlement deed in No.TP/22433734/2025 dated 23.12.2025 in respect of the property in Survey No.347/12 new Survey No.347/19 and 364/1B New Survey No.364/3A and 364/3B at Pattinamkathan, 1/6
Ramanathapuram Taluka, Ramanathapuram District presented by the petitioners.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to register the petitioners' settlement deed in No.TP/22433734/2025 dated 23.12.2025 in respect of the property in Survey No.347/12 new Survey No.347/19 and 364/1B New Survey No.364/3A and 364/3B at Pattinamkathan, Ramanathapuram Taluka, Ramanathapuram District. 2.By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the present case, the first petitioner had earlier executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife / second petitioner vide Document No.113 of 2025 dated 06.01.2025. Thereafter, the patta came to be transferred in the name of the second petitioner. 2/6
Subsequently, the first petitioner executed a cancellation deed vide Document No.135 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025, cancelling the aforesaid settlement deed dated 06.01.2025. He would further submit that the first petitioner once again intended to settle the property in favour of the second petitioner and presented the document for registration before the second respondent on 23.12.2025. However, the second respondent refused to register the same, citing the reason that the patta stands in the name of the second petitioner. Hence, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition with the above said relief.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that since the patta stands in the name of the second petitioner, the respondents were not in a position to register the document.
5.Admittedly, the first petitioner has earlier executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife / second petitioner and subsequently, cancelled the same. Further, admittedly, the patta stands in the name of the second petitioner. Merely citing the reason that patta stands in the name of the second petitioner, the 3/6
respondents ought not to have refused to register the document presented by the petitioners. Once, the earlier settlement deed is cancelled, automatically, the first petitioner becomes the absolute owner of the property. Hence, there is no impediment for the respondents in registering the document.
6.In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner to re-present the settlement deed dated 23.12.2025 and once if it is re-presented, the second respondent is directed to register the same in accordance with law, if it is otherwise in order. 7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
22.01.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR 4/6
To 1.The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Vellipattinam Sub Registrar Office, Ramanathapuram District.
5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
MR 22.01.2026 6/6