BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Manikathai ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the third respondent in RFL/Valliyur/48/2025 dated 26.09.2025 and quash the same and further direct the third respondent to register the Settlement Deed executed by the petitioner dated 25.09.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate *****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 26.09.2025.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is seen that the settlement deed that was presented for registration by the petitioner on 25.09.2025 has been refused registration on the ground that the patta does not stand in the name of the petitioner’s husband alone and further, there are entries with reference to other documents as well.

3. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a computer-printed patta standing exclusively in the name of the petitioner’s husband and the same is also produced along with the typed set of papers. The respondents are relying only upon the Adangal Extract produced by the petitioner. In the Adangal Extract, the name of the petitioner’s husband is also there along with yet another person by name Abdul Khadar. The other documents mentioned in the refusal check slip do not relate to the current survey number in respect of which the present document has been presented.

4. In reply thereto, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that even upon a perusal of the Adangal Extract, it can be seen that apart from the name of the petitioner’s husband, the name of Abdul Khadar is also found.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of this case.

6. In this case, there is no objection from any third party. It can further be seen that the claim of the petitioner is that her husband is the owner of the property dealt with under the Settlement Deed. The revenue records also reflect his name with reference to the said survey number. As regards the extent owned by the petitioner’s husband, there is also an individual patta. Therefore, merely because yet another person’s name is mentioned in the Adangal Extract, the same by itself cannot be a reason for refusal, especially when there is no objection from any other person in this regard. Further, it is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the other documents mentioned therein do not relate to the subject survey number.

7. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:

i. The impugned refusal check slip is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the third respondent.

ii. The petitioner shall re-present the document.

iii.If there is no other impediment, the same shall be registered by the third respondent.

iv. No costs.

25.03.2026 JEN Neutral Citation : No To

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J .

JEN

25.03.2026