Registration of a court decree is optional, not mandatory, warranting reconsideration of registration requests.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Keerthana Rajalingam .. Petitioner vs

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.

2.The Sub Registrar Mylapore, No.9, Seethammal Colony, K.B.Dasan Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

3.Revathi Rajalingam .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to refusal check slip bearing Refusal No.RFL/MYLAPORE48/2025 dated 17.09.2025 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and consequently direct the second respondent to register the settlement deed dated 17.09.2025 executed between the petitioner and the third respondent herein.

For Petitioner : Ms.Priyanka R For Respondent : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.U.Venkatesh for R3

ORDER

A partition suit was filed by one R.Ravindran against the petitioner, the third respondent and one Ms.Anitha Sharmila. Said suit was decreed on 15.11.2016 in terms of a memorandum of compromise. The petitioner and the third respondent were jointly allotted certain properties. Intending to settle her 50% share in favour of the third respondent, settlement deed dated 29.05.2025 was executed and presented for registration. The request was rejected under the impugned refusal check slip.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for rejection is untenable inasmuch as the registering officer has cited the non-registration of the decree as the reason for refusal. She submits that the registration of the decree is optional and not compulsory.

3. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.U.Venkatesh, learned counsel, accepts notice for the third respondent. In all fairness, Mr.Baranidharan submits that the matter warrants re-consideration.

4. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason for rejection is untenable. While it is open to the petitioner to register the Court decree, such registration is not mandatory. Consequently, the matter warrants re-consideration. In order to enable the same, the impugned refusal check slip is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to re-present the settlement deed for registration. Within two weeks from the date of such re- presentation, subject to fulfillment of other requirements relating to registration, the registering officer is directed to register the document.

5. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.