Disposed¶34

Dhandapani v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC17 Apr 2025WA/1252/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registration of decree based on out-of-court settlement; Sub-Registrar oral refusal to register, no written order; mandamus simplicitor; settlement memo dated 07.09.2021 not part of record; terms of compromise not referred to in judgment; rejection order dated 21.07.2023 unchallenged; representation dated 27.03.2023; decree dated 06.10.2021 in S.A.No.2046 of 2004 registrable as it stands; Clause 15 Letters Patent writ appeal; Sub-Registrar Nellikuppam Panruti Taluk Cuddalore District; neutral citation 2025:MHC:1023.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued; writ appeal disposed without costs, with the clarification that registration of the decree dated 06.10.2021 as it stands may proceed in accordance with law. ¶34

Dhandapani Vs The Sub Registrar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:MHC:1023

¶2

W.A.No.1252 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 17.04.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN

¶7

Writ Appeal No.1252 of 2025

Dhandapani

.. Appellant

The Sub-Registrar, Nellikuppam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. .. Respondent

¶12

Prayer : APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 09.07.2024 in W.P.No.16 of 2024 on the file of this Court.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.D.Baskar

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶17

The writ petitioner is the appellant. WP.No.16 of 2024 had been

¶18

filed by the appellant seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to

¶19

¶20

1/4

¶21

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

¶22

W.A.No.1252 of 2025

¶23

2.Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate, who

¶24

appears for the State confirms the position that there was only an oral refusal to register and no written order has been passed. Though the prayer of the appellant appears innocuous, the representation dated 27.03.2023 clarifies the actual grievance of the appellant.

¶25

3.A perusal of the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2021 reveals

¶26

that it was the contention of the appellant therein (i.e. the appellant before us) that the matter has been settled out of Court inter se the parties and he had filed a memo dated 07.09.2021 which is recorded in order dated 06.10.2021. However, the submission relating to out of Court settlement is unilateral, the contents of the memo are unknown and the terms of settlement or the settlement deed itself has not been made part of the record or part and parcel of order dated 06.10.2021. It is in these circumstances that an order has come to be passed on 21.07.2023, rejecting the request. That order has not been challenged and the prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus simplicitor.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant would pursue the same plea as put forth in representation dated 27.03.2023. When such terms of compromise are not part of record and have not been referred to in the judgment, we are of the considered view that there is nothing erroneous

¶28

2/4

¶29

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

¶30

W.A.No.1252 of 2025

¶31

in the rejection of the request by the registering authorities. In any event,

¶32

since the prayer is for a mandamus directing the respondent to register decree dated 06.10.2021, we make it clear that nothing stands in the way

¶33

of registration of decree as it stands, in accordance with law.