Allowed¶28

Thangaraj v. The Sub Registrar

Registrations – refusal check slip by Sub Registrar

Madras HC24 Mar 2026WP(MD)/7741/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench writ (W.P.(MD) No.7741 of 2026, decided 24.03.2026 by Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy) allowing petitioners Thangaraj and Jayaganesh to compel registration of a bilateral settlement cancellation deed refused by the Sub Registrar, Kariyapatti; key terms: refusal check slip, minor's property, natural guardian consent, Article 226, Certiorarified Mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip dated 12.03.2026 (RFL/Kariyapatti/12/2026) set aside; petitioners to re-present the document dated 11.03.2026; respondent directed to register the document if there is no other impediment; no costs. ¶28

Thangaraj Vs The Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.7741 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.7741 of 2026

1.Thangaraj

2.Jayaganesh

... Petitioners

Vs.

The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar Office, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the impugned check slip dated 12.03.2026 in RFL/Kariyapatti/12/2026 passed by the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to receive the document dated 11.03.2026 for registration and to register the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.Va.Shanmugaraj

¶14

For Respondent : M/s.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader

¶15

¶16

____________ Page No. 1 of 4_

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.7741 of 2026

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 12.03.2026.

¶21

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioners is that originally, by a Settlement Deed dated 15.04.2024, registered as Document No.1358 of 2024, the first petitioner had settled the property in favour of his minor grandson and subsequently, when the necessity arose to obtain a loan by mortgaging the said property for their family business purposes, the same was not granted as the property is standing in the name of the minor. Therefore, a bilateral settlement cancellation deed is now produced and the minor is represented by his natural guardian, namely, the son of the first petitioner, Jeya Ganesh, the second petitioner herein. The same is now refused to be registered.

¶22

When the minor is represented by the guardian and it is for the minor to repudiate the transaction after attaining majority. When the settlement deed is not a unilateral cancellation but is consented to by the guardian of the minor, there cannot be any ground to refuse the same.

¶23