BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Muduvai Sastha Trust, Rep. By its Managing Trustee, Mr.S.Gurusamy, S/o.P.Shanmugavel, 3/28, Thidal Pathai Street, Mudhukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District – 623 704. ... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.

3.P.Kannadasan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip issued in RFL/Mudhukulathur/18/2025, dated 20.03.2025 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to register deed of amendment of Muduvai Sastha Trust dated 10.03.2025 within the period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Stevenson For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.V.Malaiyendra for R3

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 20.03.2025 and also seeking for a consequential direction, directing the respondent No.2 to register the deed of amendment of Muduvai Sastha Trust dated

10.03.2025 within the period stipulated by this Court.

2. The grievance of the petitioner Trust is that when a Deed of amendment dated 10.03.2025 was presented for registration, the same was refused to be registered by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the third respondent has filed a protest petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that though he is also a member of the trust, he has not been made as a member in the amended deed and without his consent, the amendment deed has now been presented for registration. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit at no point of time, the third respondent was a member of the trust either in the past or in the present.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that since there was dispute, the respondent refused to register the Deed of amendment.

6. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.

7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner is a trust and there is no dispute on that, however, by excluding the third respondent, the management is now trying to register the amendment deed, by amending various clauses in the trust deed. The grievance of the third respondent is only with regard to the non enclosure of his name in the amendment deed. Though the third respondent claimed that he is a member of the trust, he has not produced any document to prove the same. Therefore, if the third respondent's right is affected by way of amendment deed, it is for the third respondent to approach the civil Court and agitate his right. Once the third respondent's right is crystallized, thereafter, necessary action can be taken in accordance with law. Till then there may not be any bar for the 2^nd respondent to register the amendment deed presented by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to register the deed of amendment dated 10.03.2025, forthwith.

9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

19.02.2026 vsm Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No To

1.The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

vsm

19.02.2026