Allowed¶41

Jamaluddin v. the Sub-Register

Madras HC22 Apr 2025WP/4978/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sub Registrar refusal of settlement deed; registering authority cannot inquire into title; Rule 55(A)(1) Registration Rules ultra vires Section 69 of the Act; K.Gopi v. Sub Registrar 2025 2 CTC 777 relied on; refusal Check Slip RFL/Sirupakkam/95/2024 dated 23.10.2024 quashed; direction to register Settlement Deed dated 23.10.2024; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Madras High Court; Justice N. Anand Venkatesh; prior decree O.S.No.895 of 2022 Principal Sub Court Kallakurichi 14.08.2024; Patta No.107; settlement deed to wife; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Refusal Check Slip dated 23.10.2024 quashed; 1st respondent directed to entertain and register the Settlement Deed dated 23.10.2024 if otherwise in order; writ petition allowed with the above directions; no costs. ¶41

Jamaluddin Vs the Sub-Register — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sub Registrar could refuse registration of the Settlement Deed on the ground that the petitioner, entitled only to a half share, executed a Settlement Deed for the entire property - i.e., whether the registering authority may go into the title of the property. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

In its considered view, taking note of the Apex Court's judgment in K. Gopi, this Court proceeded on the basis that Rule 55(A)(1) of the Registration Rules is ultra vires Section 69 of the Act and that the registering authority should not go into the title of the property.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The impugned refusal Check Slip dated 23.10.2024 issued by the 1st respondent is quashed.

¶35

Key takeaways

There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to entertain the Settlement Deed and register the same, if it is otherwise in order.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, 22-04-2025), WP No. 4978 of 2025 (Jamaluddin v. Sub Registrar, Sirupakkam and another): Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus against Refusal No. RFL / Sirupakkam / 95 / 2024 dated 23.10.2024, by which the Sub Registrar refused registration of a Settlement Deed dated 23.10.2024 executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife, on the ground that the petitioner settled the entire property though entitled only to a half share. Counsel relied on the petitioner's decree in O.S.No.895 of 2022 (Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi, judgment and Decree dated 14.08.2024 declaring title to the entire property) and Patta No.107 standing in the petitioner's name, contending the Registrar should not have gone into title. Taking note of the Supreme Court decision in K.Gopi v. Sub Registrar (2025 2 CTC 777), which held Rule 55(A)(1) of the Registration Rules ultra vires Section 69 of the Act and that the registering authority should not go into the title of the property, the Court quashed the refusal Check Slip and directed the Sub Registrar to entertain and register the Settlement Deed if otherwise in order. Writ petition allowed; no costs.

¶1

1/6

¶2

WP No. 4978 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 22-04-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶7

WP No. 4978 of 2025

Jamaluddin

Petitioner(s)

The Sub-register Sirupakkam Sub Register Office Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District

¶12

2.Fathima Bebe

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Refusal No. RFL / Sirupakkam / 95 / 2024 dated 23-10.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultra virus and consequently direct the Respondent to register and release the Settlement deed dated 23.10.2024 to the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

2/6 WP No. 4978 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Gunasekar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Karthick Jagannath Government Advocate for R1

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal Check

¶20

Slip issued by the 1st respondent dated 23.10.2024 and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 23.10.2024, executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife.

¶21

2.Heard Mr.V.Gunasekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthick Jagannath, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent.

¶22

3.The refusal Check Slip has been issued by the 1st respondent mainly on

¶23

the ground that the petitioner has executed a Settlement Deed for the entire property and whereas, the petitioner is only entitled for half share in the property.

¶24

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

¶25

3/6

¶26

WP No. 4978 of 2025

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court

¶28

the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.895 of 2022 against the 2nd respondent

¶29

and one Kamurunisha seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction for the entire property. This suit was decreed by the Principal Sub Court, Kallakurichi by judgement and Decree dated 14.08.2024. The learned counsel further submitted that the patta stands in the name of the petitioner for

¶30

the entire property in Patta No.107. In view of the same, it was contended that

¶31

the 1st respondent should not have gone into the title to the property.

¶32

5.In the considered view of this Court, considering the materials placed

¶33

before this Court and also taking note of the latest judgement of the Apex Court

¶34

in K.Gopi vs. Sub Registrar and others reported in 2025 2 CTC 777 , wherein,

¶35

the Apex Court held that Rule 55(A)(1) of the Registration Rules is ultra vires Section 69 of the Act and that the registering authority should not go into the title of the property, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned refusal Check Slip dated 23.10.2024 issued by the 1st respondent and the same is hereby

¶36

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

¶37

4/6

¶38

WP No. 4978 of 2025

¶39

quashed. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to entertain the

¶40

Settlement Deed and register the same, if it is otherwise in order.

¶41

6.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above directions.