IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY K.R.Santhoshkumar, S/o. K.N. Ramachandraiya, Door No.284, Kodathi Gate, Bengaluru 560 035.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 28.

2. The District Registrar Krishnagiri District.

3. The Sub Registrar, Veppanapalli, Krishnagiri District.

..Respondents 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 order of refusal dated 16.09.2025 made in refusal No. RFL/ Veppanapalli/ 98/ 2025 issued by the Sub Registrar, Veppanapalli, the third respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent herein to register the settlement deed dated 16.09.2025 with respect to the property comprised in S.No.45/9 situated at Kurubarapalli Village, Veppanapalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

For Petitioner: Mr.E.Om Prakash, Senior Counsel for Ms. N.Sureka For Respondents: Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, AGP

ORDER

Asserting title under sale deed dated 26.06.2024 bearing document no.2254/2024, the petitioner executed settlement deed dated 16.09.2025 in favour of his wife in respect of the property in S.No.45/9 of the extent of 3.52 acres and presented the same for registration. The request for registration was declined under impugned refusal check slip dated 16.09.2025. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the request for registration was rejected on the basis of judgment and decree dated 11.07.2017 in O.S.No.7 of 2008 before the Court in Krishnagiri. By referring to said judgment and decree, learned senior counsel points out that the suit was filed on 17.09.2007 against the vendors under sale deed dated 13.11.2003. Therefore, he points out that the defendants in the suit had transferred the property to M.Chandhiran and Kuttiyammal almost four years prior to the date of institution of the suit. The legal heirs of M.Chandhiran along with Kuttiyammal thereafter conveyed the property to the petitioner on 26.06.2024. At the time of registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, learned senior counsel points out that no objection on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.7/2008 was raised. Given that the decree is only binding on the defendants in the suit, learned senior counsel submits that it cannot stand in the way of the petitioner registering the settlement deed.

3. Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader, appears on behalf of the respondents. Referring to the decree and to the impugned order, he submits that the request for registration was refused on account of the order of injunction restraining the sale of suit properties to the third parties until a partition is effected.

4. A decree in a suit is only binding as between the parties thereto. On perusal of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7 of 2008, it is evident that the defendants in the said suit are T.M.Thirupathi and 11 others. The said T.M.Thirupathi and three others (defendants 1 to 4 in the suit) had executed sale deed dated 13.11.2003 in favour of M.Chandhiran and Kuttiyammal. In view thereof, the purchasers under sale deed dated 13.11.2003 should have been joined as parties to the suit. In any event, upon registering the property under the above mentioned sale deed, the legal heirs of Chandhiran and Kuttiyammal conveyed the property to the petitioner under sale deed dated 26.06.2024. The decree inter alia restrains the defendants from alienating the property, which, however, had been earlier alienated, to third parties. In these circumstances, the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2017 in O.S.No.7 of 2008 does not bind the petitioner and cannot be cited as reason to refuse to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner.

5. For reasons aforesaid, the impugned refusal check slip is unsustainable and is hereby