Amirthalingam v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Amirthalingam ... Petitioner /Vs./

1. The District Registrar Thoothukudi Registration District, Thoothukudi.

2. The Sub Registrar Kayalpattinam Sub Registrar Office, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondents P RAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned refusal check slip made in RFL/ Kayalpattinam/6/ 2025 dated 22.01.2025 and quash the same as illegal and in violative of Section 22A of the registration Act 1908 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner dated 22.01.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Angusamy For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip issued by the second respondent dated 22.01.2025, thereby, refused to register the settlement deed presented for registration on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce computerized patta for the property comprised in S.No.1017/1, had situated at Kandhasamipuram Village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner claimed title over the subject property, by way of patta under patta No.258 dated 04.12.2024. There is no other document to show that the petitioner is the owner of the property

4. On verification, the subject property comprised in S.No.1017/1, had situated at Kandhasamipuram Village, Thiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District, found that the patta issued in favour of one 2/4

Shanmugavel, S/o.Chellaiah, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner. Therefore, the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife dated 22.01.2025 was rightly refused to register by the second respondent.

5. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the second respondent. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to obtain other revenue document to show that the property owned by the petitioner and along with the document the petitioner is at liberty to represent the document. No costs.

29.01.2025 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No LS To

1. The District Registrar Thoothukudi Registration District, Thoothukudi.

2. The Sub Registrar Kayalpattinam Sub Registrar Office, Thoothukudi District.

3/4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

LS Order made in Dated:

29.01.2025 4/4