Dismissed¶¶43

Balamurali v. The Inspector General of Registration

Registration – Refusal Check Slip

Madras HC17 Sept 2025WP(MD)/25355/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench | W.P(MD)No.25355 of 2025 | G.R.Swaminathan, J. | decided 17.09.2025 | refusal check slip RFL/Thiruppuvanam/43/2025 dated 28.07.2025 | Sub Registrar Thiruppuvanam | settlement deed 25.07.2025 in favour of wife | Article 226 | Certiorarified Mandamus | want of title document / revenue record | patta in fourth respondent's name | chain of title: Muthuirula Thevar, Sri Jeyavilas Forms Private Limited (Doc No.446 of 1996), sale deeds 1441-1442 of 2008, Document Nos.5655-5656 of 2024 | writ petition dismissed, no costs, liberty to approach civil court.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with no costs, granting the petitioner liberty to work out his rights before the jurisdictional civil Court. ¶¶43

Balamurali Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with no costs, granting the petitioner liberty to work out his rights before the jurisdictional civil Court.

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the Refusal Check Slip dated 28.07.2025 (Refusal Number RFL/Thiruppuvanam/43/2025), refusing registration of the settlement deed on the ground that the petitioner produced no title document or revenue record indicating his right over the property, is liable to be quashed and the settlement deed directed to be registered. +1 more

¶¶26

Court's answer

The registering authority rightly declined to register the settlement deed executed by the writ petitioner; accordingly, the challenge to the Refusal Check Slip fails.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

There is no shred of evidence in favour of the writ petitioner indicating his title to the petition mentioned property; on the other hand, the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers clearly indicate that the fourth respondent holds valid title to the property.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

If the writ petitioner has any claim over the property, it is for him to work out his rights before the jurisdictional civil Court; liberty was granted on that basis while dismissing the writ petition.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Registration — Refusal Check Slip — Writ Petition (Article 226) seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to quash Refusal Check Slip dated 28.07.2025 (Refusal Number RFL/Thiruppuvanam/43/2025) and to direct the Sub Registrar, Thiruppuvanam to register a settlement deed dated 25.07.2025 executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife. Refusal was on the ground that the petitioner filed no title document or revenue record indicating his right over the property. Held: (i) no shred of evidence established the petitioner's title; (ii) the typed-set materials showed the impleaded fourth respondent (T.Sokkalingam) held valid title — the property was sold by Muthuirula Thevar to Sri Jeyavilas Forms Private Limited by sale deed dated 22.02.1996 (Document No.446 of 1996), onward conveyed by sale deeds dated 05.05.2008 (Document Nos.1441 and 1442 of 2008), and purchased by the fourth respondent by sale deeds dated 10.10.2024 (Document Nos.5655 and 5656 of 2024); (iii) the patta for the property stood in the name of the fourth respondent. The registering authority rightly declined registration. Writ Petition dismissed, no costs, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his rights before the jurisdictional civil Court.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.25355 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.25355 of 2025

Balamurali

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhom High Road, Chennai – 600 004.

¶11

2.The District Registrar, O/o.District Registrar, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.

¶13

4.T.Sokkalingam

¶14

(R.4 is impleaded vide order of this Court dated 17.09.2025)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.25355 of 2025

¶19

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 entire records in connection with the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 28.07.2025 bearing Refusal Number RFL/Thiruppuvanam/43/2025 to quash the same as unconstitutional and illegal consequently direct the third respondent herein to register the settlement deed dated 28.07.2025.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthamilventhan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶22

Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for R.4

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard both sides.

¶25

2.The writ petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 25.07.2025

¶26

in favour of his wife settling the petition mentioned property. The document was presented for registration. The registering authority declined to register the document and issued the impugned refusal check slip. The stand of the registering authority is that the petitioner has not filed any title document or revenue record indicating his right over the

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.25355 of 2025

¶30

petition mentioned property. Challenging the stand of the registering authority, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶31

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the fourth respondent got himself impleaded and filed a typed set of papers.

¶32

4.According to the writ petitioner, the petition mentioned property belonged to his grandfather / Muthuirula Thevar, S/o.Ramasamy Thevar, who is now no more. After his demise, the property devolved on his father (Veeraiah). Veeraiah also passed away on 18.03.2021 leaving behind Rakku / petitioner's mother, the petitioner and his brother Elavarasan as legal heirs.

¶33

5.The impleaded respondent points out that Muthuirula Thevar had sold a large extent of property, which included the petition mentioned property, vide sale deed dated 22.02.1996 in favour of Sri Jeyavilas Forms Private Limited. Copy of the said sale deed (Document No.446 of 1996) has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. The said company subsequently sold the said property in favour of one Malaiarasan and

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.25355 of 2025

¶37

Sivabalasubramanian vide sale deeds dated 05.05.2008. They were registered as Document Nos.1441 of 2008 and 1442 of 2008. Sivabalasubramanian executed power of attorney in favour of Muthuirula Thevar and from Muthuirula Thevar, the fourth respondent herein purchased the entire extent vide sale deeds dated 10.10.2024 (Document Nos.5655 of 2024 and 5656 of 2024).

¶38

6.The patta in respect of the petition mentioned property ,which forms part of a larger extent, stands in the name of the fourth respondent. Interestingly, the petitioner has enclosed the said patta in his typed set of papers.

¶39

7.There is no shred of evidence in favour of the petitioner indicating his title. On the other hand, the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers clearly indicate that the fourth respondent holds valid title to the property. The registering authority rightly declined to register the settlement deed executed by the writ petitioner. If the writ petitioner has any claim, it is for him to workout his rights before the jurisdictional civil Court.

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD)No.25355 of 2025

¶43

8.Granting the said liberty, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No

¶44

costs.

¶45

17.09.2025 2/2