The registering officer is obligated to register documents if procedural compliance is met and cannot engage in extensive inquiries about title or signature genuineness beyond significant discrepancies.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-06-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WP NO. 20018 of 2025 Viknesh ... Petitioner Vs The Sub Registrar, Kavindapadi Sub Registrar Office, Kavindapadi, Erode District – 638 455. .. Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent's refusal slip No.RFL/Kavindapadi/19/2025 dated 30.04.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 30.04.2025 executed between petitioner in favour of his wife Sangeetha within time frame.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anandhamurthy for Mr.J.Ranjith Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abishet Murthy Government Advocate

O R D E R

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The writ petition is filed challenging the refusal slip dated 30.04.2025, way back, the respondent has refused to register the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife on the following premises:

(a) That there is a mismatch between the signature in the partition deed and the Will, by which the petitioner claims to derive title:

(b) There is no evidence to show this is the last Will executed by the petitioner's grand father.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject property was originally owned by his grand father Kolandhasamy Gounder Thereafter, the subject properties were settled through a Will dated 05.08.1991 in favour of his wife Pavathal, who is petitioner's paternal grand mother. In terms of the said Will, petitioner's grand mother Pavathal was granted life estate and thereafter the property was bequeathed to the petitioner as his absolute property. The Will was not registered. The said Kolandhasamy Gounder passed away on 07.09.1991, while his grand mother passed away on 23.04.1999. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is in possession of the subject property till date without any encumbrance. In the circumstances, the petitioner decided to execute settlement deed in favour of his wife in respect of subject property. When the settlement deed dated 30.04.2025 was presented for registration, the same was rejected on the premise that;

(a) That there is a mismatch between the signature in the partition deed and the Will, by which, the petitioner is stated to derived title:

(b) There is no evidence to show this is the last Will executed by the petitioner's grand father.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the above reasons for refusing registration of the settlement deed cannot be sustained and is contrary to the decisions of this court. In this regard, reliance was sought to be placed on the judgment of this Court in WP.No.2561 of 2025, dated 29.01.2025, ( P.Senthil Kumar Vs. The Sub Registrar ), wherein, there is a mismatch of signatures between the signature found in two documents. On the ground that there is a mismatch of signatures in two different documents, it was held as under:

'7. It is not the role of the first respondent to go into the roving enquiry as to whether the said Rajalakshmi had died intestate or otherwise, particularly when the Will was not placed for the fst respondent's scrutiny for its genuineness. That apart, the first respondent cannot do the role of an expert to compare the signatures. The first respondent is not a competent expert as contemplated under sec.45 of the Evidence Act