Disposed¶51

Madathiyammal v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC2 Jul 2026WP(MD)/18370/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal check slip; refusal to register settlement deed; Sub Registrar Sankarankovil; Tenkasi District; legal heirship certificate; late Karuppiah Moopanar; original parent document; K.Gopi 2025 INSC 462; registering officer not concerned with title; Section 34C unconstitutional and arbitrary; M/S.Dugars W.P. (MD) Nos.7415 of 2026; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; co-owners; partition deed; grandchildren; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; C. Saravanan J.; disposed at admission; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of at admission by consent, with liberty to the petitioner to re-present the settlement document along with the legal heirship certificate of late Karuppiah Moopanar and clear demarcation of the boundary by way of a partition deed; no costs. ¶51

Madathiyammal Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the refusal to register the settlement deed on the ground of failure to produce the original of the parent document is sustainable, given the petitioner's submission that the issue is covered by K.Gopi (2025 INSC 462), where the registering officer has no adjudicatory power over the executant's title. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

To the extent of the Division Bench's holding in M/S.Dugars (W.P. (MD) Nos.7415 of 2026 and batch, dated 23.06.2026) that Section 34C is unconstitutional and arbitrary, the petitioner's submission merits consideration; read with the K.Gopi position (registering officer not concerned with the executant's title), the operative direction does not insist on production of the original parent document.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Failure to produce the legal heirship certificate of late Karuppiah Moopanar cannot be condoned; a mere self-serving affidavit that the petitioner is one of his legal heirs is not sufficient. Although the Sub Registrar's office is not concerned with legality, where there is no clear partition among members claiming right from the same ancestry, registration cannot be allowed to create confusion among co-owners; the petitioner must obtain the legal heirship certificate and a partition deed among the legal heirs agreeing the boundaries.

¶47

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to re-present the document along with the legal heirship certificate and clear demarcation of the boundary by way of a partition deed; no costs.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 against Refusal Check Slip No. RFL/Sankarankovil/63/2026 dated 17.06.2026 issued by the Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil (third respondent), rejecting a settlement deed dated 17.06.2026 executed by the petitioner Madathiyammal in favour of her grandchildren in respect of her undivided share in Survey Nos. 752, 739/2, 740 and 741 at South Sankanrankovil Village, Tenkasi District. Grounds of refusal: (i) failure to produce the legal heirship certificate of late Karuppiah Moopanar (died 16.09.1984) and (ii) failure to produce the original of the parent document. The Court noted K.Gopi Vs. The Sub Registrar and others, 2025 INSC 462 (registering officer not concerned with the executant's title; no adjudicatory power to decide title) and the Division Bench ruling in M/S.Dugars (W.P. (MD) Nos.7415 of 2026 etc. and batch, dated 23.06.2026) that Section 34C is unconstitutional and arbitrary, observing that the petitioner's submission merits consideration to that extent. Held that failure to produce the legal heirship certificate cannot be condoned on a self-serving affidavit; where there is no clear partition among members claiming right from the same ancestry, registration cannot be allowed to create confusion among co-owners; the petitioner must obtain the legal heirship certificate and a partition deed among the legal heirs agreeing the boundaries. Petition disposed of at admission by consent with liberty to re-present the document with the legal heirship certificate and boundary demarcation by partition deed. No costs. (Single Judge: C. Saravanan, J.; decision dated 02.07.2026.)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

Madathiyammal

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhom High Road Chennai 600 028

¶11

2.The District Registrar No. 99, Samy Santhai Street Tenkasi 627 811

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Sankarankovil Sankarankovil Tenkasi District

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to Refusal Check Slip No. RFL/Sankarankovil/63/2026 dated 17.06.2026 quash the same, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

¶18

register the Settlement Deed dated 17.06.2026 executed by the petitioner in respect of the Petitioner's undivided share in the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 752, 739/2, 740 and 741 situated at South Sankanrankovil, Village, Tenkasi District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhanamari

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondents.

¶23

2.By consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission, after

¶24

hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶25

3.The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned refusal check slip issued by the third respondent bearing Ref.No.RFL/Sankarankovil/63/2026 dated 17.06.2026.

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

¶29

4.By the impugned refusal slip, a settlement deed, dated 17.06.2026, executed by the petitioner in favour of her grandchildren, has been rejected with the following observations:-

¶30

“Mtzj;jpy; Nyl;.fUg;igah %g;gdhu; mtu;fspd; Fkuhj;jpAk; jpU.fpU;zrhkp mtu;fspd; kidtpAkhd jpU.ng.khlj;jpak;khs; mtuJ kfs; top Ngudhd jpU.ey;yKj;Jrhkp mtu;fSf;F jpUkjp.khlj;jpak;khs; mtu;fspd; jfg;gdhu; Md fUg;igah %g;gdhu; mtu;fs; ngaUf;F Mtz vz;fs; 1351 / 1955> 798 / 1957> 1393 / 1957 fpiua Mtzq;fs; %yk; fpilf;f ngw;W thupR mbg;gilapy; jpUkjp.khlj;jpak;khs; mtu;fspd; gq;fhd njw;Frq;fud;Nfhtpy; fpuhkk; ru;Nt vz; 752 Vf;fu; 4 nrz;l; 73 ru;Nt vz; 739 / 2 Vf;fu; 7 nrz;l; 16.5k; ru;Nt 740 Vf;fu; 1 nrz;l; 11k; ru;Nt vz; 741 Vf;fu; 7 nrz;l; 45.25 Mf nkhj;jk; Vf;fu; 20 nrz;l; 45.75y; gpuptpd;wp 7y; 1 gq;F Vf;fu; 2 nrz;l; 92.75k; ru;Nt vz; 739 / 2> 741> 752 ,itfspy; cs;s fpzW epyk; tifawhf;fspy; gpuptpd;wp 7y; 1gq;Fk; vd Vw;ghL Mtzk; vOjp jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;lJ.

¶31

Nyl;.fUg;igah %g;gdhu; mtu;fSf;F thupR rhd;W ngw;Wk; Nkw;gb ru;Nt vz;fspy; cs;s gpuptpd;wp 7y; 1gq;F Vf;fu; 2 nrz;l; 92.75k; ru;Nt vz; 739/2> 741> 752 ,itfspy; cs;s fpzW epyk; tifawhf;fspy; gpuptpd;wp 7y; 1gq;Fk; jq;fSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;gij ePjpkd;wk; %yk; Miz ngw;Wk; mry; Mtz vz;fs; 1351/1955> 798/1957> 1393/1957 cld; jhf;fy; nra;AkhW njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”

¶32

5.Reading of the above indicates that two specific grounds have been taken

¶33

for issuing the refusal check slip. ie., i) Failure to produce the legal heirship certificate of late.Karuppiah Moopanar and ii) Failure to produce the original of the parent document.

¶34

3/7

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

¶37

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as far as the production of the original of the parent document is concerned, issue is no longer res integra and is covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi

¶38

Vs. The Sub Registrar and others , 2025 INSC 462, wherein it had been stated as

¶39

under:-

¶40

“15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.”

¶41

7.In M/S.Dugars Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its

¶42

Secretary to Government, Registration Department, Chennai and others , W.P. (MD) Nos.7415 of 2026 etc and batch , dated 23.06.2026 , the Division Bench of

¶43

4/7

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

¶46

this Court has also held that Section 34C was unconstitutional and arbitrary. To that extent, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits consideration.

¶47

8.As far as failure to produce the legal heirship certificate is concerned, the same cannot be condoned. A mere production of a self-serving affidavit that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late.Karuppiah Moopanar, who died on 16.09.1984, is not sufficient. The petitioner has to supplement the transaction relating to the property with a proper legal heirship certificate and a partition deed partitioning the extent in the location between the other legal heirs. Although the Sub Registrar Office is not concerned with the legality, when there is no clear partition among the members claiming right from the same ancestry, the registration cannot be allowed to create confusion among the co-owners. The petitioner has to obtain a legal heirship certificate of late Karuppiah Moopanar and also a partition deed between the legal heirs of late.Karuppiah Moopanar, agreeing with the boundaries.

¶48

5/7

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

¶51

9.The Writ Petition stands disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioner to re-present the document once again along with the legal heirship certificate and clear demarcation of the boundary by way of a partition deed. No costs.

¶52

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mm

¶53

02.07.2026

¶54

¶55

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhom High Road Chennai 600 028 2.The District Registrar No. 99, Samy Santhai Street Tenkasi 627 811 3.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Sankarankovil Sankarankovil Tenkasi District

¶56

6/7

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

¶59

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶60

¶61

W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026

¶62