Shanmugasundaram A v. The Sub-Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 06/02/2026

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Shanmugasundaram A ... Petitioner Vs The Sub-Registrar, Alangulam Sub-Registrar Office, Tenkasi District..

... Respondent PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records in impugned check slip in RFL/Alangulam/133/2025 dated 31.10.2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to accept sale deed dated 30.10.2025 for registration and register the same forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip dated 30.10.2025 issued by the respondent and to direct the respondent to 1/5

accept the settlement deed dated 30.10.2025 presented by the petitioner for registration.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondent. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. When the petitioner presented the settlement deed for registration, the same was refused to be registered by the respondent on the ground that since there were several registrations in respect of the subject property, the decision with regard to title of the property could not be quantified. Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner intends to execute a settlement deed in favour of his son. However, the same came to be refused to be registered citing the reason that it was not subdivided and the title could not be quantified. 2/5

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that since the subject property was not subdivided, when the petitioner intends to settle the subject property in favour of his son by releasing his right, the title of the property could not be quantified, as numerous registrations had taken place in respect of the very same property.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. It appears that in the present case, as rightly contended by both sides, the petitioner intends to execute a settlement deed in favour of his son by releasing his right. Even though no subdivision was made, the subject property is given in favour of his son and ultimately, if there are any dispute, it is for the parties/legal heirs to work out their remedy and as on date, the petitioner's son is entitled to the extent of the property settled in his favour. Hence, there is no impediment for the respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to represent 3/5

the sale deed dated 30.10.2025 and upon such representation, the respondent shall register the same forthwith, if the same is otherwise in order.

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

06.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR TO The Sub-Registrar, Alangulam Sub-Registrar Office, Tenkasi District..

4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J RR

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.3350 of 2026 Date : 06/02/2026 5/5