S.N.M.Ismail v. The Inspector General Of Registration
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY S.N.M.Ismail
...Petitioner
vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Special Officer / Joint Receiver of Kalaimagal Sabha, 17/48, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.
3. The District Registrar, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2025 within the time frame fixed by this court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sivanu Pandian A For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman, Government Advocate for R1 and R3 Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R2 1/5
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2025.
2. Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 3. Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent.
3. By consent on either sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, the petitioner's wife and four others participated in the auction of the subject property and were declared the successful bidder; a 10% pre-deposit has been made to the respondents in that regard. Subsequently, the petitioner's wife has passed away on 12.09.2024. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation dated 26.11.2025 to the second respondent to register the subject property in the name of the petitioner, petitioner's daughters and other partners. However, the same is yet to be considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 2/5
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the issue is relating to 1.5 lakhs sq.ft. land and the building therein. The issue has already attained finality in W.A.No.593 of 2003, dated 06.06.2007, wherein, one of the partners made a request for refund and the same was rejected. He would further submit that the present claim is after a period of 24 years and it is barred by limitation. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
6. In the present case, one of the partners has already agitated the issue and it has attained finality in W.A.No.593 of 2003, dated 06.06.2007, by rejection of the claim. Once the issue has attained finality, now, it is not fair on the part of the petitioner to agitate the issue again. To be noted, the petitioner's wife and four others were partners, and they together succeeded in the auction. When one of the partners has made a claim and did not succeed, and when the issue has attained finality, each and every partner cannot file separate petitions to re-agitate the same issue. Further, when a claim is made after a prolonged period of 24 years, even assuming that the petitioner is entitled to the amount, the claim is now barred by limitation and it is not legally enforceable. In such circumstances, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the second respondent. 3/5
7. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is up to the petitioner to get a copy of the Judgment from the other partner, who filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.593 of 2003. No costs.
19.02.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Special Officer / Joint Receiver of Kalaimagal Sabha, 17/48, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.
3. The District Registrar, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
4/5
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mbi 19.02.2026 5/5