Allowed¶31

V.Ramasamy v. Teh Inspector of general of Registration

Madras HC11 Mar 2026WP/9570/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal check slip; Sub Registrar Singallur; settlement deed registration refused; last page of parent document missing; certified copy of parent document proves genuineness; total non-application of mind; registration directed within two weeks if otherwise in order; Inspector General/District Registrar/Sub Registrar Registration Department Coimbatore; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J; WP No. 9570 of 2026; 11-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.02.2026 passed by the 4th respondent quashed; writ petition allowed by directing the 4th respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner, if otherwise in order, within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. ¶31

V.Ramasamy Vs Teh Inspector of general of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the refusal check slip dated 14.02.2026 issued by the 4th respondent, refusing registration of the petitioner's settlement deed on the ground that the last page of the parent document is missing, is sustainable where the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the parent document proving the original's genuineness, and whether the respondents are bound to register the settlement deed.

¶22

Court's answer

The impugned refusal check slip dated 14.02.2026 was issued by the 4th respondent by total non-application of mind, since the petitioner proved by the certified copy that the original parent document (last page missing) is a genuine document, which substitution was not disputed by the respondents.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the parent document which proves the original parent document is genuine, the respondents necessarily have to register the settlement deed presented for registration, if it is otherwise in order.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose, J.), WP No. 9570 of 2026, decided 11-03-2026: The Sub Registrar, Singallur, refused registration of the petitioner's settlement deed dated 12.02.2026 via check slip dated 14.02.2026 on the ground that the last page of the parent document was missing. Held that, as the petitioner had produced a certified copy of the parent document proving the original's genuineness — a fact not disputed by the respondents — the refusal check slip was issued by total non-application of mind. The impugned order was quashed and the Sub Registrar directed to register the settlement deed, if otherwise in order, within two weeks; no costs. Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

¶1

WP No. 9570 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 9570 of 2026

¶6

V.Ramasamy S/o.late.Velappa Konar, D.No.8/4 A(1) Jeyaprakash Street, Idayarpalayam, Vellore Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore-641 026.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The Inspector of general of Registration Registration Department, 100 Santhome High Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 028.

¶10

Deputy Inspector general of Registration Registration Department, West Zone, Coimbatore.

¶11

District Registrar Registration department, State Bank Road, Coimbatore District. Coimbatore-641 018.

¶12

The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar office, Singallur, Coimbatore District.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER – This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to order passed by the 4^th respondent in check slip dated 14.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently

¶15

__________ Page1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 9570 of 2026

¶18

direct the 4^th respondent to register the settlement deed dated 12.02.2026 and for consequential orders.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.K.Vengadesh Durai Raja for Mr.Deepanuday For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check

¶22

slip dated 14.02.2026 issued by the 4^th respondent, refusing to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the last page of the parent document produced by the petitioner is missing.

¶23

2.The petitioner also claims that the petitioner had also produced the certified copy of the parent document to the 4^th respondent to prove that the original parent document produced by the petitioner in which the last page of the said document is missing, is a genuine document.

¶24

3.Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts

¶25

notice on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner had produced the certified copy of the parent document.

¶26

4.Since the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the parent document which will prove that the original parent document produced by him

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 9570 of 2026

¶30

is a genuine document, necessarily, the respondents will have to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration, if it is otherwise in order. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 14.02.2026, has been issued by the 4^th respondent by total nonapplication of mind to the fact that the petitioner has been able to prove that the original parent document produced by the petitioner is a genuine document as he has substituted the same with the certified copy, which is also not disputed by the respondents.

¶31

5.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.02.2026, passed by the 4^th respondent is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed by directing the 4^th respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration if it is otherwise in order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

11-03-2026

¶33

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶34

GSA To

¶35