Allowed¶32

G,Santhi v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC5 Aug 2025WP(MD)/10653/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal check slip / Refusal Slip RFL/crpyk;gl;o/11/2025 dated 14.03.2025 quashed; Section 22(A) Registration Act, 1908; Section 22(A)(2); Section 22A; settlement deed dated 20.02.2025 refused registration; new pathway formed; subdivision 8 new plots circular; Greater Chennai Metropolitan Area clause logic applied to Usilampatti Town Panchayat; encumbrance certificate; four plots above 20 cents; Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; S.Srimathy J.; register settlement deed within four weeks; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: refusal slip dated 14.03.2025 quashed, and respondents directed to register the settlement deed dated 20.02.2025 within four weeks; no costs. ¶32

G,Santhi Vs The Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: refusal slip dated 14.03.2025 quashed, and respondents directed to register the settlement deed dated 20.02.2025 within four weeks; no costs.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the Refusal Slip dated 14.03.2025 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Usilampatti - refusing registration of the settlement deed dated 20.02.2025 on the ground that a new pathway formed therein brought the document within Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 - was justified, i.e., whether the petitioner's case falls outside Section 22(A)(2) and is covered by the clarification given in the circular.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Although the circular's eight-new-plots clause is applicable formally only to the Greater Chennai Metropolitan Area, its underlying logic (restricting development) may be applied equally to the present case, even though the present area comes within the purview of Usilampatti Town Panchayat.

¶28

Key takeaways

The petitioner's case is not coming within Section 22(A)(2) and is covered under the clarification given in the circular; accordingly, registration of the settlement deed ought not to have been refused.ratio¶28
The impugned order, i.e., the refusal slip dated 14.03.2025, is quashed.ratio¶29
The respondents are directed to register the settlement deed dated 20.02.2025 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD)No.10653 of 2025 (S.Srimathy, J.; decision dated 05.08.2025) - G.Santhi v. Sub-Registrar, Usilampatti and others. Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the 1st respondent's Refusal Slip in RFL/crpyk;gl;o/11/2025 dated 14.03.2025 and to direct registration of the petitioner's settlement deed dated 20.02.2025 (executed in favour of her daughter). The Sub-Registrar had refused registration on the view that a new pathway formed in the settlement deed brought the document within Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. On perusing the encumbrance certificate, the Court noted that the petitioner, though purchasing only four plots, held above 20 cents. Holding that although the circular's clause on subdivision creating 8 new plots is applicable formally to the Greater Chennai Metropolitan Area alone, the logic behind the 8-plot restriction (restricting development) may be applied to the present case also even though the area lies within Usilampatti Town Panchayat, the Court concluded that the petitioner's case does not come within Section 22(A)(2) and is covered under the clarification given in the circular. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.03.2025 was quashed and the respondents were directed to register the settlement deed dated 20.02.2025 within four (4) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. Writ petition allowed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10653 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P(MD).No.10653 of 2025

G.Santhi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Sub-Registrar, Usilampatti Sub Registrar Office, Madurai District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶12

M.Muthusamy

¶13

N.Veerkalai

¶14

N.Raja

¶15

Indhumathi ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the 1^st respondent proceedings in his Refusal Slip in RFL/crpyk;gl;o/11/2025 dated 14.03.2025 is illegal and quash the same

¶17

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.10653 of 2025

¶19

and consequently direct the respondent to Register the settlement Deed dated 20.02.2025.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rengaraj For R1 & R2 : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth Additional Government Pleader For R3 to R5 : Mr.A.Raja For R6 : Mr.S.S.Sundara Pandian

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present writ petition is filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking the refusal check slip dated 14.03.2025 and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed.

¶23

Through the Impugned Order, the 1^st respondent have stated that

¶24

initially the 4 plots belongs to four different persons. Subsequently, the petitioner has purchased all the four plots and is settling the same in the name of her daughter. On perusing the above said four plots, it is seen new pathway were formed. The petitioner while executing the present settlement deed has formed a new pathway and it is is coming within the purview of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶25

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.10653 of 2025

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a larger extent of property was divided. Only four plots were purchased and it is settled in the name of the petitioner's daughter.

¶28

After hearing the rival submissions and on perusing the encumbrance certificate, it is seen that the petitioner even though purchased four plots, it is above 20 cents. Further in the circular, it has been stated that if the property has been sub divided and 8 new plots are created, the same would not come within the purview of Section 22A. Even though the said clause is applicable to the Greater Chennai Metropolitan Area alone, the logic behind the said 8 plots is to restrict the development in Greater Chennai Metropolitan Area. The same logic may be applied to the present case also, even though the present area is coming within the purview of Usilampatti Town Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner's case is not coming within Section 22(A)(2) and it is covered under the clarification given in the circular.

¶29

Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.03.2025 is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to register the 1^st respondent to register the Register the settlement Deed dated 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.10653 of 2025

¶31

20.02.2025 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32