Allowed

P.Periyasamy v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC27 Aug 2021WP(MD)/15264/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to quash refusal of will registration due to alleged unsound mind. Court directed re-submission of will with medical proof of sound mind, to be submitted within three months to Sub-Registrar for reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to re-submit will with medical opinion proving sound mind; Sub-Registrar directed to consider and decide on re-submission within three months.

P.Periyasamy Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15264 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.08.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD)No.15264 of 2021 and W.MP.(MD).No.12173 of 2021

P.Periyasamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary, Registration Department,

¶8

Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶9

2.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, SanthomeSalai,

Mullima Nagar,

Manthaivelipackam,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

3.The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Trichirapalli District.

¶15

4.The Sub-Registrar, Musiri, Trichirapalli District. ... Respondents

¶16

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 on the file of the fourth respondent pertaining to its impugned Check Slip dated 06.08.2021 (TP/104134068/2021) and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to register the Will of the petitioner forthwith.

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s. N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran, Counsel for State,

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner challenges a refusal check slip dated 06.08.2021, whereby the will presented for registration was not registered by the fourth respondent. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 71 years. He executed a will in favour of his son on 02.08.2021 and visited the office of the fourth respondent on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 06.08.2021 in order to register such will. The petitioner states

¶20

1/3

¶21

W.P(MD)No.15264 of 2021

¶22

that the fourth respondent refused to register the will because he was unable to name the beneficiaries of the will. It is stated that the petitioner was unable to hear properly on account of his advanced age and, therefore, could not reply properly to the said questions. The present appeal has been filed to assail the refusal check slip.

¶23

2.Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. He submits that the registration authorities are obligated to examine whether the person presenting the document is doing so while in a sound state of mind. By referring to the impugned refusal check slip, he states that the Sub-Registrar concerned has recorded that the executant of the will was not in a sound disposing state of mind.

¶24

3.Upon examining the affidavit and the refusal check slip, it cannot be said that the impugned order contains any infirmity. At the same time, it should be taken note of that senior citizens are likely to suffer from various health conditions, including hearing impairment. Therefore, as long as it can be ascertained on the basis of medical opinion that the testator is in a sound state of mind to execute and register the document, the process of registration should be facilitated. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to re-submit the will for registration after obtaining and providing relevant documents to establish that he is in a sound state of mind. Such a request may first be made to the second respondent. Upon receipt of necessary instructions from the second respondent, the petitioner may re present the will for registration before the fourth respondent. Upon such re presentation before the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent is directed to consider the re submitted document and take a reasoned decision thereon. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

4.W.P.(MD).No.15264 of 2021 is disposed of these terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected WMP.(MD).No.12173 of 2021 is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS III)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P(MD)No.15264 of 2021

¶32

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶33

¶34

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary, Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, SanthomeSalai, Mullima Nagar, Manthaivelipackam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. 3.The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Trichirapalli District. 4.The Sub-Registrar, Musiri, Trichirapalli District. +1 CC to M/s.N.SUDHAGAR NAGARAJ, Advocate ( SR-27590[F] dated 27/08/2021 )

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.The Special Government Pleader ( SR-27833[F] dated 01/09/2021 )

¶36

W.P(MD)No.15264 of 2021 and W.MP.(MD).No.12173 of 2021 27.08.2021

¶37

RS (07.09.2021) 3P 7C

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

3/3

P.Periyasamy v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Periyasamy v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amanullah.v.S.T. Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

M. Palanisamy Vs the Dist. Collector

N.Saraswathi Vs N.Selvakumar

Alagarsamy K Vs the District Collector

Jeyakumar M.P Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Anthony @ Jolly Anthony Vs the District Registrar