S.Raman v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 04/03/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD).No.4975 of 2026 S.Raman, ... Petitioner Vs The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Aruppukkottai, Viruthunagar District.

... Respondent PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal slip Number RFL/ Aruppukkottai/8/2026 dated 27.02.2026 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to register and release the settlement deed dated 27.02.2026 executed by the petitioner in favour of his father sethuraj.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Jegadeeswaran, For Respondent : Mr.F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal slip dated 27.02.2026.

2. The document is refused to be registered on the ground that in the parent document that is produced by the executant, it is seen that the property is settled on one Saravanan, but one Raman is claiming the title pursuant to the said document. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is born to Sethuraj and Mahalakshmi and they do not have any other male child except this petitioner. The petitioner was named as Raman by his parents and all his records reflect his name only as Raman. Only his grandfather insisted on calling him as Saravanan and accordingly mentioned his name as Saravanan in the document. There is no rival claim in this case, except for the change of name.

2/5

3. In view of the said positive assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that there is no other person called Saravanan and the person named Saravanan in the parent document and the present petitioner, Raman are one and the same, I am of the view that a notarized affidavit to the that effect stating that Saravanan and Raman are one and the same person and it is only Raman who is wrongly mentioned as Saravanan by his grandfather in the parent documents be produced before the respondent. Since there is no other rival claim, the document can be registered. If any third-party claim arises, the affidavit may also include an undertaking that the petitioner will indemnify the official authorities regarding any such claim.

4. This Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms. The impugned order dated 27.02.2026 shall stand set aside. The petitioner shall represent the document along with a notarized affidavit stating that Saravanan and Raman are one and the same and it is only Raman, who is called as Saravanan in the parent document and that if there is any other third party claim, the petitioner shall indemnify for reclaim if any. Upon such production of the same, the document shall be registered within a 3/5

period of three weeks there from. Simultaneously, steps also taken by the petitioner to approach the Revenue Authorities by producing the same affidavit for transferring the property in the name of Raman. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.03.2026 TTA TO The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Aruppukkottai, Viruthunagar District.

4/5

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J TTA

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.5957 of 2026 Date : 04/03/2026 5/5