Allowed

Velmurugan v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC1 Aug 2024WP/22114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a partition deed on the ground that an earlier settlement deed was cancelled in 1969. Holding that the property was continuously possessed by the petitioner's father and revenue records stood mutated in his name with no objection from co-owners, the Court quashed the refusal check slip and directed registration within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Refusal Check Slip RFL/Mecheri/17/2024 dated 22.07.2024 quashed; respondent directed to register Partition Deed dated 24.05.2024 within seven days; no costs.

Velmurugan Vs the Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.22114 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.22114 of 2024

¶7

Velmurugan ... Petitioner versus The Sub-Registrar, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip in Refusal No.RFL/Mecheri/17/2024 dated 22.07.2024 and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and further direct the respondent to admit and register the Partition Deed dated 24.05.2024.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondent : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1/4

¶14

W.P.No.22114 of 2024

¶15

2 . This Writ Petition is filed to quash the Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number : RFL/Mecheri/17/2024 dated 22.07.2024 a nd

¶16

consequently direct the respondent to register the same.

¶17

3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶18

4 . It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that when the Partition Deed was presented for registration, the respondent refused to register the

¶19

same on the ground that the Settlement Deed has been cancelled subsequently in the year 1969.

¶20

5 . The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that though the said cancellation happened in the year 1969, the petitioner's father is in continuous possession and patta also stands in his name. Therefore, partitioning the property which is in the possession of the petitioner's father, there is no bar under law. Hence, he seeks a direction.

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.22114 of 2024

¶24

6 . On perusal of the revenue records available in the typed set of

¶25

papers indicates that the petitioner's father is continuously enjoying the property and revenue records also mutated in his name. Therefore, when the family property is continuously in the possession, co-owners and others have no objections in registering the partition deed by the legal heirs, there cannot be any bar. In such view of the matter, the impugned refusal slip has to be set aside.

¶26

7 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 22.07.2024 i s quashed and the respondent is directed to register the Partition Deed dated 24.05.2024 presented by the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶27

01.08.2024 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶28

sri

¶29

3/4

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.22114 of 2024

¶32

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶33

sri

¶34

¶35

The Sub-Registrar, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶36

W.P.No.22114 of 2024

¶37

01.08.2024

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

4/4

Velmurugan v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velmurugan v. the Sub Registrar

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

Mr.Vijayakumar S/O. Neelakandan Vs The Sub Registrar

C.Sudhakar Vs the District Revenue Officer

Murugan @ Murugeasan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Dr.S.Bharanidharan Vs R.Velraj

S.Shyamala Vs the Sub Registrar

B.R.Premavani Vs The Sub-Registrar