Allowed¶54

V.Sriram v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC12 Nov 2025WP/33242/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registration refusal check slip quashed; Sub Registrar Sathyamangalam Erode District; settlement deed registration; Natham land vs Government poramboke land; 'A' register Natham classification; unregistered Will not bar to registration; Registration Act compulsory registration/probate of Will Metropolitan Area; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; original parent document not insisted; writ petition allowed; Krishnan Ramasamy judgment 12.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 26.07.2025 issued by the first respondent was set aside, and consequently the first respondent was directed to register the settlement deed as and when re-presented for registration forthwith without any further delay. No costs. ¶54

V.Sriram Vs the Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sub Registrar was justified in refusing registration of the settlement deed on the ground that the subject property is recorded as Government Poramboke Land in the Sub Registrar Office records. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

This Court went through the 'A' register, wherein the property in question is mentioned as 'Natham property'; the manner in which the purchaser D.Vasantha and the petitioners put the property to use as a house property per se makes clear that it is a Natham property.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The refusal made by the first respondent by merely stating that the subject property is a Government Poramboke Land alone is not sufficient.

¶45

Key takeaways

If the contention of the first respondent is that the property is Government Poramboke Land and the petitioners are claiming illegal ownership over it, it is for the respondent/Government to take appropriate action against the petitioners in the manner known to law.ratio¶45
Since the Will relates to a property situated in Erode District, under the Registration Act compulsory registration of a Will and probation (probate) of a Will arise only in respect of properties situated in places other than Metropolitan Area; hence non-registration of the Will cannot justify refusal to register the settlement deed.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.) allowed W.P.No.33242 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Sathyamangalam/19/2025 dated 26.07.2025, whereby the Sub Registrar, Sathyamangalam, refused to register the petitioners' settlement deed dated 26.07.2025 (executed in favour of their son S.S.Madhusudan Ram, the petitioners having acquired the property through an unregistered Will dated 22.01.2024 of D.Vasantha, who died on 05.05.2024), citing (i) recording of the survey number as 'Government Poramboke Land' in Sub Registrar records and (ii) non-registration of the Will. Holding: (1) The property was used as house property both by the purchaser D.Vasantha (sale deed dated 18.11.2016) and by the petitioners (house constructed, taxes and charges paid), and the 'A' register describes it as 'Natham property'; this per se establishes its Natham character. (2) Mere recording as Government Poramboke Land alone is not sufficient ground for refusal; if the Government contends the petitioners claim illegal ownership, it must take appropriate action in the manner known to law. (3) Under the Registration Act, compulsory registration/probation of a Will arises only in respect of properties situated in places other than Metropolitan Area, so refusal on account of the unregistered Will was unsustainable. Disposition: Writ Petition allowed; refusal check slip set aside; Sub Registrar directed to register the settlement deed upon re-presentation forthwith; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No. 33242 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :12.11.2025

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶5

W.P.No.33242 of 2025

¶6

V.Sriram

¶7

S.Abitha

¶8

..Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Sub-Registrar,

¶11

Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

¶12

The Tahsildhar

¶13

Sathyamangalam, Erode District. R-2 suo mottu impleaded vide order dated 25.10.2025 made in this W.P. ...Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a certiorarified mandamus, to call for records of the respondent, Sub Registrar, Sathyamangalam, relating to Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Sathyamangalam/19/2025, dated 26.07.2025 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the first respondent to register the settlement deed dated 26.07.2025, presented by the petitioners for registration without insisting for the production of original parent document.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent-1 : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader For Respondent-2 : Mrs.S.Indhu Bala

¶16

Additional Government Pleader

¶17

1/9

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No. 33242 of 2025

¶20

Order

¶21

The challenge made in this Writ Petition is to the Refusal Check Slip issued by the first respondent, Sub Registrar, Sathyamangalam, dated 26.07.2025 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct him to register the settlement deed dated 26.07.2025, presented by the petitioners for registration without insisting for the production of original parent document.

¶22

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property, having acquired the same by virtue of a Will executed by one D.Vasantha in their favour dated 22.01.2024; that based on the said Will, the petitioners are now intending to settle the subject property in favour of their son, S.S.Madhusudan Ram, and when they presented the settlement deed for registration, the first respondent vide impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 26.07.2025 refused to register the said document, hence, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the said impugned refusal check slip.

¶23

2/9

¶24

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

¶25

2.1

¶26

W.P.No. 33242 of 2025

¶27

2.1 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one

¶28

Mrs.D.Vasantha, viz., the petitioners' Aunt, has no legal heirs; that during her lifetime, since she was taken care of by the petitioners, she bequeathed the subject property in favour of the petitioners by virtue of a Will dated 22.01.2024; that after her (Vasantha) demise on 05.05.2024, the petitioners acquired right over the property and are in possession and enjoyment of the property and have been paying the property tax, electricity charges, etc.,; that as proof, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced photostat copies of the said payment bills for reference before this Court, and he fairly submitted that in all revenue records, particularly, 'Á' register, the subject property is mentioned as 'Natham Property', however, the first respondent, without considering the same, arrived at a wrong conclusion that the property is a Government Poramboke Land and that the Will is an unregistered one and refused to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioners. Thus, by averring so, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the first respondent dated 26.07.2025 and to issue appropriate direction for registration of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner.

¶29

3/9

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No. 33242 of 2025

¶32

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader for first respondent would submit that in the records maintained in the Sub Registrar Office, the survey number of the petitioners' property is mentioned as 'Government Poramboke Land', and therefore, the first respondent refused to register the Settlement Deed and that apart, since the Will dated 22.01.2024 was an unregistered one, such refusal has been made and the same cannot not be found fault with.

¶33

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶34

Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 respectively and perused the materials placed on record.

¶35

5. It is the case of the petitioners that their Aunt, one Mrs.D.Vasantha purchased the subject property vide a sale deed dated 18.11.2016 along with house property and was in possession and enjoyment of the same and paying the property tax, electricity charges, etc., During the life-time of the said D.Vasantha, she executed a Will dated 22.01.2024,

¶36

4/9

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No. 33242 of 2025

¶39

thereby, bequeathing the property in favour of the petitioners. After the demise of the said D.Vasantha on 05.05.2024, the petitioners acquired right over the property and are in possession and enjoyment of the same and, after such inheritance, they have been continuing to pay the property tax, electricity charges, etc.,

¶40

5.1 It is the petitioners' claim that the subject property is a Natham property. The learned counsel for the petitioners also produced all revenue records, particularly, 'A' register, as proof to show that the property is a Natham Property. Though in the records maintained by the respondents in the Sub Registrar Office, the subject property is mentioned as 'Government Poramboke Land', taking into consideration of the fact that both the purchaser, Mrs.D.Vasantha, who, purchased the property along with housesite vide a Sale Deed dated 18.11.2016 and was paying the property tax and electricity charges, and the petitioners, who, in a similar way, after acquiring right over the property by virtue of a Will dated 22.01.2024 has utilized the property by putting up a house and has been paying the property tax, water tax and electricity charges, it is clear that the

¶41

5/9

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No. 33242 of 2025

¶44

property was put to use only as a house property. Generally speaking, the Natham properties are properties meant for construction of house.

¶45

5.2 Thus, in the present case, the way, in which, the property was put to use both the purchaser of the property, viz., D.Vasantha and the petitioners would per se make it clear that the property is a Natham property. In fact, this Court also gone through the ''A' register, where, the property in question is mentioned as 'Natham property'. If it is the contention of the first respondent that the property is a Government Poramboke Land, and the petitioners' are claiming illegal ownership over the same, it is for the respondent/Government to take appropriate action against the petitioners in the manner known to law. Therefore, the refusal made by the first respondent by merely stating that the subject property is a Government Poramboke Land alone is not sufficient.

¶46

5.3 So far as the second stand taken by the first respondent for

¶47

such issuance of impugned Refusal Check Slip that the Will dated 22.01.2024 is an unregistered Will is concerned, this Court would like to

¶48

6/9

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No. 33242 of 2025

¶51

point out that admittedly, the Will was executed in respect of a property situated in Erode District and under the Registration Act, the law does not mandates compulsory registration of a Will and for probation of a Will only in respect of properties situated in places other than Metropolitan Area. Hence, in the present case, refusal made by the first respondent on the ground of non-registration of the Will dated 22.01.2024 is also unsustainable. Thus, this Court is of the view that the first respondent without considering all the aforesaid aspects in a proper perspective, committed a fault in the decision making process and refused to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioners for registration vide impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 26.07.2025, and hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the same.

¶52

6. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass/issue the following

¶53

orders/direction:-

¶54

i) The impugned refusal check slip issued by the first respondent dated 26.07.2025 is set aside.

¶55

7/9

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No. 33242 of 2025

¶58

ii) Consequently, the first respondent is directed to register the settlement deed as and when the same is re-presented for registration forthwith without any further delay.

¶59

7 . In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid

terms. No costs.

12.11.2025

Index : Yes/No Internet : yes/no

¶64

¶65