Elumalai Vs the District Registrar

Jet Associates Represented by its Managing Director , Mr.Jeppiar, S/o.Jesadimai No.12, Ganapathy Street, Royapettaih, Chennai – 600 014. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the second respondent's refusal check slip vide RFL/Chetpet/23/2022, dated 04.11.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to register the settlement deed dated 03.11.2022 in favour of the petitioner's son, namely Kotteswaran.

¶13

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

¶14

1/4

¶15

Writ Petition No.6981 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Saritha For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader [R1 and R2] *****

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip issued by the second respondent dated 04.11.2022 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to register the settlement deed dated 03.11.2022 executed by the petitioner in favour of her son.

¶19

Heard Ms.R.Saritha, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶20

The petitioner claims right and title over the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 11.06.1987 registered as Document No.491/1997. The petitioner wanted to execute a settlement deed in favour of her son and when the document was presented for registration, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that the

¶21

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

¶22

2/4

¶23

Writ Petition No.6981 of 2025

¶24

very same property was dealt with and a sale deed was executed in favour of the third respondent by one Perumal by sale deed dated 04.01.2007, which was registered as document No.27 of 2007. The total extent of property purchased by the petitioner is 1.87 acres and what was dealt with in the subsequent sale deed dated 04.01.2007 is 1.08 acres. It is quite shocking that the Registration Department has permitted the subsequent sale deed to be registered for the same property, which was already standing in the name of the petitioner. This is yet another case of double documentation for the same property and many such cases have come to the notice of this Court, which requires a permanent solution. It is not possible to send the parties to the civil Court every time when the same property has been dealt with subsequently by some third parties and that document is also registered. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the sale deed dated 04.01.2007 is not binding on the petitioner since the petitioner was the owner of the property from the year 1987 onwards.

¶25