Allowed¶28

Leela @ Neela v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC10 Sept 2025WP(MD)/24647/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registration of settlement deed refused citing subsisting mortgage; refusal check slip quashed; holding that mere subsistence of a mortgage does not bar the owner from dealing with the property and any new transaction is simply subject to the existing mortgage; petitioner permitted to re-present document; Sub Registrar directed to register and release subject to usual formalities; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 10.09.2025; W.P(MD)No.24647 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; refusal check slip quashed; petitioner permitted to re-present the settlement deed dated 23.04.2025 and the first respondent directed to register and release it subject to the usual formalities; no costs. ¶28

Leela @ Neela Vs The Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the registering authority's refusal to register the petitioner's settlement deed on the ground that the property stands mortgaged in favour of the second respondent's father is sustainable.

¶22

Court's answer

The registering authority's objection has no basis: mere subsistence of a mortgage will not operate as an impediment for the owner of the property to deal with the property.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming the mortgage is still in subsistence, the subject transaction will simply be subject to the said mortgage.

¶26

Key takeaways

The impugned refusal check slip is quashed; the petitioner is permitted to re-present the document and the first respondent is directed to register and release it subject to fulfilment of the other usual formalities.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madurai Bench) W.P(MD)No.24647 of 2025, decided 10.09.2025 before the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) by Justice G.R. Swaminathan: The petitioner Leela @ Neela sought to settle her property in favour of her daughter by a settlement deed dated 23.04.2025, presented for registration on 19.08.2025. The Sub Registrar, Sivagangai District issued a refusal check slip (RFL/Thiruppathur-Karaikudi/13/2025 dated 22.08.2025) on the ground that the property was mortgaged in favour of the second respondent K.Subramanian's father and could not be registered without clearing the mortgage. Holding that mere subsistence of a mortgage is no impediment to the owner dealing with the property, and that even a subsisting mortgage would only render the new transaction subject to it, the Court quashed the refusal check slip, permitted re-presentation of the document, and directed the first respondent to register and release it subject to the usual formalities. Writ petition under Article 226 allowed; no costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.24647 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.24647 of 2025

Leela @ Neela

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registration Office, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.K.Subramanian

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the refusal check slip in refusal number RFL/Thiruppathur-Karaikudi/13/2025 dated 22.08.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 23.04.2025, presented on 19.08.2025.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.24647 of 2025

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader for R.1

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the

¶21

learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. Considering the nature of relief to be granted, issuance of notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

¶22

2.The writ petitioner wants to settle the petition mentioned property in favour of her daughter. When the document was presented for registration, registration was denied. Instead, the impugned refusal check slip was issued. The stand of the registering authority is that the property in question was mortgaged in favour of the second respondent's father and that without clearing the same, registration cannot be allowed to go on.

¶23

3.This objection has no basis. It is well settled that mere subsistence of a mortgage will not operate as an impediment for the owner of the property to deal with the property. Even if we assume that 2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.24647 of 2025

¶26

the mortgage is still in subsistence, the subject transaction will be subject

¶27

to the said mortgage. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the document. The first respondent is directed to register and release the same subject to the fulfilment of the other usual formalities.

¶28

4.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶29

10.09.2025

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA

¶31

¶32

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registration Office, Sivagangai District.

¶33

3/4

¶34