Catherine Monica Vs The Joint IV sub Registrar

¶1

WP No. 13247 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

WP No. 13247 of 2026

¶7

Catherine Monica D/o Late Mr. Gnanadural, W/o Mr. Joshua Soundarrajan, No 93C/55, T.S.gopal Nagar, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai 600 019, Tiruvallur District

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

Vs

¶10

The Joint IV sub Registrar Kancheepuram Sub Registration office, Kancheepuram District

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

WP No. 13247 of 2026

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

Calling for the entire records on the file of the respondent herein in his proceedings in Refusal check Slip bearing RFL No 4, Joint Sub Registrar kancheepuram / 10/ 2026, dated 02.03.2026 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal, consequently, direct the respondent herein to receive, admit and register the Settlement deed, dated 02.03.2026 of the petitioner, in respect of the petition properties, being agricultural Nanja and Punja lands, comprised in Survey Nos 122/4-0.14.00 Ares or 34 1/2 cents and 156/2 - 0.33.00 Ares or 81 1/2 cents, total measuring an extent of 1.16 acres, situate at No 99, Vedel village, kancheepuram Taluk and District

¶15

WP No. 13247 of 2026

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Suresh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan,SGP For Respondent

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 13247 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.03.2026 issued by the respondent, refusing to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the encumbrance for the said property discloses that the property has already been conveyed to another party.

¶21

The petitioner categorically contends before this Court that she is the absolute owner of the property, which is the subject matter of the settlement deed dated 02.03.2026, which was presented by the petitioner for registration.

¶22

The petitioner has also filed supporting documents along with this writ

¶23

petition in support of her case. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the same.

¶24

As seen from the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.03.2026, the petitioner’s contentions as raised in this writ petition along with the petitioner’s supporting documents have not been considered by the respondent. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the respondent prior to passing of the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.03.2026.

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 13247 of 2026

¶27

Since the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.03.2026 is a nonspeaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition and the impugned refusing check slip has also not considered the supporting documents produced by the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was also granted to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.03.2026 has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

¶28

Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.03.2026 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall submit a written explanation to the respondent along with supporting documents, stating as to why there is no legal impediment for the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 02.03.2026 presented by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, within the stipulated time, the respondent shall issue notice to the party in whose name the document has been registered in respect of the very same property, which is the reason for issuing the impugned refusal check slip dated 02.03.2026 and after hearing the objections of the said party, and after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 13247 of 2026

¶31

the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by the petitioner, shall take a final decision as to whether the settlement deed presented by the petitioner can be registered or not within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶32

In case, the respondent decides to refuse registration of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner, the respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

¶33