Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3647/2026dismissed

Sugunadevi v. The Inspector General Of Registration

2026-02-10Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Sugunadevi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector General of RegIstration, Inspector General of Registration Office, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2. The District Registrar, Thoothukudi District Registration Office, Thoothukudi.

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

4. Suyambura

5. Lingakumar

6. Karthikeyan

7. Yuvraj 1/6

8. Padmanathan ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate action based on the petitioner's representation dated 19.11.2025 subsequently direct the 1 to 3 respondents to cancel the fraudulent released deed 1998/2011 dated 07.07.2011, settlement deeds nos. 4338/2023 and 4339/2023 dated 23.11.2023, rectification deeds nos. 2381/2025 and 2382/2025 dated 09.07.2025 and sale deed No. 2400/2025 dated 10.07.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pandiyaraj, For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action based on the petitioner's representation dated 19.11.2025, subsequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the fraudulent released deed No.1998/2011 dated 2/6

07.07.2011, settlement deeds Nos. 4338/2023 and 4339/2023 dated 23.11.2023, rectification deeds Nos. 2381/2025 and 2382/2025 dated 09.07.2025 and sale deed No. 2400/2025 dated 10.07.2025.

2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the respondents 4 to 8, notice to them is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject property was originally owned by one Ramalinga Nadar, who had four sons and one daughter. The petitioner was married to one of the sons of Ramalinga Nadar. The petitioner's husband, Dhanalingasekar, passed away leaving behind the petitioner, one daughter, and one son. Without taking the petitioner and her children into consideration, the other siblings of her husband executed a fraudulent release deed, settlement deed, and sale deed. Seeking to cancel the above said documents, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3/6

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 submits that, if the petitioner has any right over the subject property, she can file a partition suit before the civil court. If her rights are determined with respect to her portion of the property, all sales pertaining to that portion would automatically become null and void. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

5. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. A perusal of the records shows that the petitioner's husband was admittedly one of the legal heirs of Ramalinga Nadar and therefore, the petitioner and her children are entitled to their share in the subject property. The grievance of the petitioner is that without taking the petitioner and her children into account, the other legal heirs of Ramalinga Nadar have executed settlement and release deeds. Under these circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 3, the only course available to the petitioner is to approach the civil court and file a suit for 4/6

partition. Once the petitioner's rights with respect to her portion of the property are determined, all sales made in respect of her portion would automatically become null and void. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought by the petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10.02.2026 vsm TO

1. The Inspector General of RegIstration, Inspector General of Registration Office, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2. The District Registrar, Thoothukudi District Registration Office, Thoothukudi.

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

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

VSM WP(MD) No.3647 of 2026 Date : 10.02.2026 6/6