Disposed¶25

K.Ramesh v. the Deputy Inspector for Registration

Madras HC27 Jan 2026WP/460/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.460 of 2026; Madras High Court; Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy; Article 226; writ of mandamus; registration of final decree; sale deed; partition suit O.S.No.587 of 2016; Principal District Court Gingee; compromise decree 17.02.2017; refusal check slip; oral refusal; representation dated 10.11.2025; re-presentation of decree; two weeks; Sub Registrar Mylam; District Registrar Tindivanam; Deputy Inspector General of Registration Cuddalore; disposed with directions; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on terms: petitioner to re-present the decree for registration within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; decree to be registered within a further two weeks subject to fulfilment of other registration requirements; no order as to costs. ¶25

K.Ramesh Vs the Deputy Inspector for Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2025 and to register the final decree/sale deed in O.S.No.587 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court, Gingee. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The petitioner shall re-present the decree for registration within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Within two weeks of re-presentation, subject to fulfilment of other requirements in relation to registration, the decree shall be registered.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.; order dated 27.01.2026) disposed of W.P.No.460 of 2026, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to the registration authorities (Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Cuddalore; District Registrar, Tindivanam; Sub Registrar, Mylam) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2025 and register the final decree/sale deed arising from partition suit O.S.No.587 of 2016 (Principal District Court, Gingee), which was decreed on compromise on 17.02.2017. Registration of the final decree was stated to have been refused by the second respondent; the respondents submitted that no refusal check slip or other document evidencing refusal was filed, and petitioner's counsel stated the refusal was oral. Disposing of the petition, the court directed the petitioner to re-present the decree for registration within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, and ordered that, subject to fulfilment of other registration requirements, the decree be registered within a further two weeks. No order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.460 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.460 of 2026

K.Ramesh

.. Petitioner

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Cuddalore.

¶11

2.The District Registrar, Tindivanam.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Mylam, Tindivanam.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India

¶15

praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2025 and to register final decree/sale deed in O.S.No.587 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Court, Gingee.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohanasundararajan

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.460 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner’s mother, Amutha, filed O.s.No.587 of 2016 before the Principal District Court, Gingee for partition. The said suit was decreed on 17.02.2017 based on a compromise. When the petitioner approached the second respondent to register the final decree, it is stated that the request was refused. In those circumstances, after submitting a representation dated 10.11.2025, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader,

¶24

accepts notice for all the respondents. He submits that the petitioner has not filed the refusal check slip or any other document indicating that registration of the final decree was refused. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the refusal was oral.

¶25