IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Panneerselvam, S/O.Balasubramanian, Kuyilam village, Perunkulathur Madura, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Petitioner Vs The Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar office, Manalurpettai, Tirukovilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

..Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Refusal Check slip dated 31.10.2025 issued by the respondent in his office Refusal Number:RPL/Manalurpet/95/2025, quash the same and direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 31.10.2025 executed by the petitioner in favour of his daughter with respect to the lands measuring 1 acre comprised in S.No.28-15 with right in the well and motor pumpset and 0.40 acres comprised in S.No.28-16, Pallichandal village, Vanapauram Taluk, Kallakurichi District ( previsouly Tirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District)

within the Sub-Registration District of Mangalurpet within the time.

For Petitioner: Mr. P.Mani For Respondent: Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, Addl. Govt. Pleader

ORDER

Civil proceedings between the petitioner and his brother-in-law Shanmugasundaram culminated in judgment and decree dated 08.09.2020 in S.A.No.101 of 2011. The said judgment recognised the petitioner as the owner of the relevant immovable property. The said decree was also registered before the registering officer as document no.3295/2025. Thereafter, the petitioner executed settlement deed dated 31.10.2025 in favour of his daughter and presented the same for registration. The request was declined under the impugned refusal check slip. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the refusal check slip and submitted that reference was made therein to settlement deed bearing document no.1343 of 2004. He points out that this Court held that the said settlement deed is not valid and that the earlier settlement deed in favour of the petitioner’s wife is valid. He also points out that the refusal check slip refers to lease deed bearing document no.1351/2015, which had expired by efflux of time. Hence, he contends that the impugned order is not sustainable.

3. Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the sole respondent. He submits that the petitioner ought to have impleaded Shanmugasundaram as a party to this writ petition. He also submits that an alternative remedy is available under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. The petitioner has filed the judgment in the second appeal. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the title of the petitioner has been confirmed in the said judgment. In the affidavit in support of this writ petition, it is stated categorically that the respondents in the second appeal did not file a further appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the judgment and decree attained finality. The impugned refusal check slip also makes reference to lease deed bearing document no.1351/2015. The registration of a lease deed would not stand in the way of the registration of a settlement deed in relation to the relevant property. In any event, it is also contended that the period of lease has expired by efflux of time. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

5. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the settlement deed before the registering officer for registration. This shall be done within two weeks from the SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

KJ date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon re-presentation, after issuing notice to Shanmugasundaram, the registering officer shall register the document subject to fulfilment of other requirements in this regard or issue a speaking order of refusal. These actions shall be done within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of re-presentation.

6. The writ petition stands di