Dismissed¶39

Lp.v.Veerappan v. The District Registrar

Madras HC19 Jan 2026WP(MD)/1063/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal Check Slip; RFL/Thiruppuvanam/2/2026; cancellation deed registration refused; settlement deed Document No.119 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025; minor beneficiary/granddaughter; guardian and mother Alagammai Chidambaram; consent cancellation; patta transferred to minor; condition prohibiting cancellation; prior permission of competent Civil Court required for alienation of minor's settled property; Sub Registrar Thiruppuvanam; District Registrar Sivagangai; Article 226 Constitution of India; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; Krishnan Ramasamy, J.; 19.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Upon execution and registration of the settlement deed dated 07.01.2025, the settled property stood vested in favour of the minor beneficiary (third respondent). ¶34

Lp.v.Veerappan Vs The District Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Thiruppuvanam/2/2026 dated 06.01.2026 should be quashed as arbitrary and illegal, and the second respondent directed to register the cancellation deed presented by the petitioner on 06.01.2026. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the second respondent's action in refusing to register the cancellation deed by issuing the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 06.01.2026.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Upon execution and registration of the settlement deed dated 07.01.2025, the settled property stood vested in favour of the minor beneficiary (third respondent).

¶34

Key takeaways

Even assuming the petitioner's intention is to provide alternate properties to the minor beneficiary, the substitution cannot be done by way of cancellation of the earlier settlement deed.ratio¶34
When the beneficiary under a settlement deed is a minor, any sale, exchange, alienation, mortgage or transfer of the property requires the prior permission of the competent Civil Court; in the absence of such permission, the petitioner is not entitled to seek registration of the cancellation deed dated 06.01.2026.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Krishnan Ramasamy, J. - W.P.(MD) No.1063 of 2026 (decision dated 19.01.2026). The petitioner, who had executed a registered settlement deed (Document No.119 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025) in favour of his minor granddaughter (third respondent, represented by her guardian-mother Alagammai Chidambaram), presented a cancellation deed on 06.01.2026 jointly with all parties' consent, intending to settle alternate properties. The second respondent refused registration through Refusal Check Slip RFL/Thiruppuvanam/2/2026 dated 06.01.2026, citing the prohibition condition in the original settlement deed and the patta already transferred to the minor. Held: on registration the property vested in the minor beneficiary; when the beneficiary is a minor, any sale, exchange, alienation, mortgage or transfer requires prior permission of the competent Civil Court, and alternate properties cannot be provided by cancelling the earlier settlement deed; absent such permission the petitioner is not entitled to seek registration of the cancellation deed. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Registrar's refusal, the writ petition under Article 226 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1063 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1063 of 2026

LP.V.Veerappan

... Petitioner

1.The District Registrar, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar, Thiruppuvanam Sub-Registrar Office, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.Selvi Meenakshi ... Respondents (third respondent represented through her guardian and mother Alagammai Chidambaram)

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL / Thiruppuvanam / 2 / 2026, dated 06.01.2026 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to register the cancellation deed presented by the petitioner on 06.01.2026.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanakumar

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.1063 of 2026

¶18

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Refusal

¶20

Check Slip in RFL/Thiruppuvanam/2/2026 dated 06.01.2026 and for a

¶21

consequential direction to the second respondent to register the cancellation deed presented by the petitioner on 06.01.2026.

¶22

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶23

that the petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the third respondent in respect of the properties mentioned therein, which was registered as Document No.119 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025 on the file of the second respondent. It is submitted that, due to certain unforeseen family circumstances, it became necessary for the petitioner to execute a fresh settlement deed in respect of different properties, and therefore, it

¶24

was imperative to cancel the earlier settlement deed. It is further submitted that the cancellation of the earlier settlement deed was sought with the consent of all the parties concerned, including the third respondent and her guardian. Accordingly, a cancellation deed cancelling the settlement deed bearing Document No.119 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025 was executed and jointly presented for registration before the second

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.1063 of 2026

¶28

respondent on 06.01.2026. However, the second respondent refused to register the cancellation deed by issuing the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 06.01.2026 on the ground that the original settlement deed contained a condition prohibiting cancellation and that patta had already been transferred in the name of the minor third respondent. Challenging the said refusal, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶29

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the third respondent is a minor and that the settlement deed dated 07.01.2025 had already taken effect, whereby the property stood vested in favour of the minor. It is submitted that once the property has been settled and rights have devolved upon the beneficiary, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally or even by consent, particularly when the beneficiary is a minor. Any transaction in the nature of cancellation, exchange, transfer, alienation, or mortgage of the minor’s property can be effected only with the prior permission of the competent Civil Court. In the absence of such permission, the registering authority was justified in refusing to register the cancellation deed.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.1063 of 2026

¶33

4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on

¶34

either side. Admittedly, the petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 07.01.2025 in favour of his granddaughter, the third respondent, who is a minor. Upon execution and registration of the settlement deed, the property stood vested in favour of the minor beneficiary. The petitioner now seeks to cancel the said settlement deed on the ground that he intends to exchange or substitute the settled properties with other properties. Even assuming that the intention of the petitioner is to provide alternate properties, the same cannot be done by way of cancellation of the earlier settlement deed. When the beneficiary under the settlement deed is a minor, any sale, exchange, alienation, mortgage, or transfer of the property can be effected only with the prior permission of the competent Civil Court, as mandated under law. In the absence of such permission, the petitioner is not entitled to seek registration of the cancellation deed dated 06.01.2026.

¶35

5. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the action of the second respondent in refusing to register the cancellation deed by issuing the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 06.01.2026.

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.1063 of 2026

¶39

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be

¶40

no order as to costs.

¶41

19.01.2026