Manickaraj Gnanathurai v. The Inspector General Of Registration

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD).No.5162 of 2026 Manickaraj Gnanathurai ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar, Karur District.

3. The Sub Registrar, O/o. The Sub Registrar, Uraiyur, Karur.

... Respondents 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 the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 3rd respondent in Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Uraiyur/28/2026 dated 17.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the easement deed executed before the 3rd respondent dated 17.02.2026 and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

1/6

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Sujeeth For Respondents :

M/s.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 17.02.2026, quash the same and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to register the easement deed executed before the 3rd respondent dated 17.02.2026.

2. Heard Mr.G.Sujeeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.

3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that the petitioner had presented a document in the form of an agreement relating to an 2/6

arrangement for the usage of the pathway for registration. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the patta in respect of the subject property stands in the name of the co-owners and petitioner had entered the agreement only with one of them.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even one co-owner can enter into an arrangement regarding the pathway, especially since the other co-owners have not objected to the same. In any event, notice can be issued to the other co-owners, and if they have no objection, there should be no impediment whatsoever.

6. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms:- i. The impugned refusal check slip dated 17.02.2026 is quashed. ii. The matter is remanded back to the file of the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. The 3rd respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to both parties, consider their objections, if any, and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. If there is any objections raised by the coowners, even then it will be open for the petitioner to argue his position before the Sub Register and the Sub Registrar shall decide 3/6

the issue once again and thereafter, pass orders. The entire enquiry shall be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt or other web copy of the order.

iii. Needless to state that if there is no objection, the document can be registered immediately.

iv. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.03.2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes rgm 4/6

To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar, Karur District.

3. The Sub Registrar, O/o. The Sub Registrar, Uraiyur, Karur.

5/6

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

rgm and W.M.P(MD).No.5162 of 2026 06.03.2026 6/6