WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page1 of 18

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserving the OrderDate of Pronouncing the Order

01.09.2026 01.10.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

W.P.(MD)No.27133 of 2025

{CNR: HCMD011356132025}

Case QR

D.Gengai Muthu

S/o.Duraisamy,

D.No.4, 4

th

Street,

Singarathoppu,

Aruppukottai Town,

Virudhunagar District.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The District Registrar

Registration Department,

Virudhunagar District.

2.The Sub Registrar,

Thiruchuli Sub Registrar Office,

Virudhunagar District.

3.Chellapandi,

S/o.Subramania Thevar alias Karuppasamy

Thevar, No.3-226-4, 3/153, Middle Street,

Melakandamangalam Village (PO), Tamilpadi,

Virudhunagar District - 626 129.

4.Rajendran,

S/o.Subramania Thevar alias Karuppasamy

Thevar, Pasumpon Nagar, Thottamadakkipatti,

Sevalpatti PO, Virudhunagar District - 626 140. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page2 of 18

5.Muruganandam,

S/o.Subramania Thevar alias Karuppasamy

Thevar, No.3-226-4, Melakandamangalam

Village PO, Tamilpadi,

Virudhunagar District - 626 129.

6.Indirani, W/o.Velchamy,

Door No. 2/120, Vedanatham Village,

Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

7.Latha,

W/o.Ramesh, Door No. 7/29A, Meenkadai

Street, Paramakudi Town and Taluk,

Ramanathapuram District.

(R3 to R7 are impleaded vide court order dated

16.10.2025 in WMP(MD)No.22237 of 2025 in

WP(MD)No.27133 of 2025 by GRSJ)

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying

this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records

pertain to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Thiruchuli/24/2025 dated

22.09.2025 issued by the 2

nd

respondent and quash the same and consequently,

direct the 2

nd

respondent to register the settlement deed dated 22.09.2025

presented by the petitioner in favour of his son namely, G.Karthikeyan in

respect of the property situated in Bymash No.28/6, Survey No.95/2 to an extent

of 16 cents and Bymash No.154, 155, 156, Survey No.33/1 to an extent of 3

acres and 88 cents, Melakandamangalam Village, Aruppukottai Taluk,

Virudhunagar District and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render

justice.

For Petitioner(s):Ms.D.Rajeswari

For Respondent(s):Mr.R.Parthiban

Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page3 of 18

Mr.J.Karthikeyan for R3 to R7

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Refusal Check

Slip bearing reference in Refusal No.RFL/Thiruchuli/24/2025 dated 22.09.2025,

whereby the Settlement Deed dated 22.09.2025 executed by the petitioner in

favour of his son, G.Karthikeyan, has been returned with the following

observations:

tpUJefu; khtl;lk ; jpUr;Rop rhu;gjptf

“

vy;iyf;Fl;gl;l Nkyfz;lkq;fyk; fpuhkk ; igkh];

epu;.28/6 1)> ru;Nt vz;.95/2 eQ;ir nrz;L 60y; tlGwk;

nrz;L 16f;F Vu;] ; 0.06.5k;> 2).i\ fpuhkk ; igkh];

ek;gu; 154> 155> 156>ru;Nt vz;. 33/1y; GQ;ir Vf;fu; 3

nrz;L 88f;F Vu;];1.57.0k; Nru;j;J 22.09.2025k; Njjpapy;

jhdnrl;by;nkz;l; Mtzk; ,d;W kjpak; 1.00 mstpy;

gjpTf;F jhf;fy ; nra;ag;gl;l epiyapy ; Nkw;gb ru;Nt

vz;zpy; i\ nrhj;J njhlu;ghf nrd;id

gjpTj;Jiwj;jiytu ; mtu;fs ; Rw;wwpf;if vz;

18223/rp1/2013 ehs ; 08.11.2013 gbAk;> kw;Wk ; nrd;id

gjpTj;Jiwj;jiytu; mtu;fs; Rw;wwpf;if 39708/rp1/2018>

ehs;: 04.10.2018d ; gb ,t;tYtyf tpy;yq;frhd;W

guPrpypidapd; NghJ NkNy fz;l ru;Nt vz;zpy; vz;

jpU-Jiur;rhkp mtu;fs; Fkhuu ; jpU.J nfq;ifKj;J

vOjpnfhLg;gtuhfTk; mtuJ kfd; vOjpthq;Fgtu; jpU

nf.fhu;j;jpNfad; vOjp ngWgtuhfTk; Mtzk; jhf;fy;

nra;ag;gl;lJ. Nkw;gb Mtzj;jpd ; %y Mtzkhf

fUg;gzj;Njtu ; mtu;fs ; kfd; rpiwkPl;lhu;j;Njtu;

jdf;fhfTk; jd; kf;fs; ikdu;fs; fhu;bad; epiyapy;

thq;fg;ngw;w fpiua Mtzk ; 497/1944k;> uj;jpdk;khs;

mtu;fshy; 15.12.1965k; Njjp mUg;Gf;Nfhl;il rhu;gjptfk;

3Gj;jfk; 30/1965epu; gjpT Mtzk; %yk; vdf;F capy;

rhrzk; vOjpf; nfhLf;fg;gl;L mtu; fle;j 20.03.1968k;

Njjp fhyk; nrd;w gpd;G eilKiwf;F te;j epiyapy;

Mtzj;jpd; fz;l 1>2yf;f nrhj;Jf;F tUtha; kw;Wk;

Nguplu; Nkyhz;ikj; Jiw epy cupik tpguq;fs; 10(1)

tl;lk; mUg;Gf;Nfhl;il tUtha ; fpuhkk;

Nkyf;fz;lkq;fyk; gl;lh vz;. 44tpy; rpiwkPl;lj;Njtu;

kfd; fpotj;Njtu; ngaupy; ru;Nt vz;. 95/2Af;F n`f;. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page4 of 18

0.12.0. khw;wg;gl;Ls;sJ. kw;Wk; gl;lh vz;75y; ru;Nt vz;.

33/14 Ay; n`f;;. 0.35.25k;> ru;Nt vz;. 33/12y; ntwf;

0.22.50k ; Rg;gpukzpaNjtu ; vd;w fUg;grhkpNjtu;

ngaupYk;> gl;lh vz;. 2020y; ru;Ntvz;. 33/14B

n`f;.0.60.75 $l;L gl;lhtpy; KUfhde;jk;> ,uhN[e;jpud;>

nry;yg;ghz;b ngaupYk ; cs;sJ. Nkw;gb nrhj;J

njhlu;ghf Mtzj;ij gjpT nra;a gjpTj;Jiwj;jiytu;

Rw;wwpf;ifapd;gb Kd ; Mtzq;fs ; kw;Wk ; gl;lh

Mfpatw;wpid guprPypf;f Ntz;Lnkd njuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s

epiyapy; Nkw;gb Mtzk ; vOjp nfhLg;gtu ; ngaupy;

gl;lh ,y;yhjjhy ; vOjpnfhLg;gtu ; ngaupy; gl;lh

khWjy ; nra;j gpd;G kPs jhf;fy; nra;a

mwpTWj;jg;gLfpwJ.

”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the land

measuring an extent of 4 acres in Survey Nos.95/2A and 33/1, by virtue of two

Sale Deeds, namely, Doc.No.497/1944 dated 27.03.1944, measuring an extent

of 16 cents, and Doc. No.332/1948 dated 24.02.1948, measuring an extent of

3.84 acres.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the first mentioned document was

executed by one Siraimeeta Thevar, for himself and his minor sons, namely,

Karuppanadevar, Karuppasamy Thevar @ Subramania Thevar and Kilavan to

one Rathinammal and after his death, the second mentioned document was

executed by his three minor sons namely Karuppanadevar, Karuppasamy

Thevar @ Subramania Thevar and Kilavan through their mother, namely,

Angammal, who is the wife of the said Siraimeeta Thevar in favour of the said

Rathinammal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page5 of 18

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Rathinammal did not

have any issues and therefore, had executed a registered Will which was

registered as Doc.No.30/1965 dated 15.12.1965, in favour of the petitioner. It is

the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner as the nephew of the said

Rathinammal, bequeathed the above properties purchased by her under the

above two mentioned documents and by virtue of the registered Will .

5. For the sake of clarity, the property purchased by the said Rathinammal

and in respect of which the Will was executed by the said Rathinammal in

favour of the petitioner are reproduced below:

S.No Doc.No. & Date Document Executant Claimant Survey

Number

Extent

1. 497/1944 &

27.03.1944

Sale DeedSiraimeeta

Thevar and

his three sons

Rathinammal 95/2A 16 cents

2. 332/1948 &

24.02.1948

Sale DeedAngammal

and her three

sons

Rathinammal 33/1 3 acre 88

cents

3.30/1965 & 15.12.1965Will RathinammalGengai Muthu 95/2A

33/1

16 cents

3 acre 88

cents

6. The land which was bequeathed in favour of the Petitioner has now

been proposed to be settled by the petitioner in favour of his son Karthikeyan, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page6 of 18

which has now been rejected. The description of the property in the Settlement

Deed is reproduced below for the sake of clarity:

nrhj;J tpguk;

1. tpUJefu; gjpT khtl;lk; jpUr;Rop

fpisg;gjpT khtl;lk; mUg;Gf;Nfhl;il

tl;lk; Nkyf;fz;lkq;fyk; fpuhkj;jpy;

igkh] ; ek;gu;.28/6 ru;Nt vz;.95/2

eQ;ir nrz;L 60y; tlGwk; nrz;L

16f;F Vu;v]; 0.06.5f;F khy;-

tlf;F - ru;Nt vz;.33-14 epu; epyk;

njw;F - ru;Nt vz;.95-2V epu; epyk;

Nkw;F - ru;Nt vz;.95-1 epu; epyk;

fpof;F - ru;Nt vz;.95-2gp epu; epyk;

,jw;Fs ; nrz;L 16 fl;Lg;gl;lJ.

Nkw;gb nrhj;J jw;NghJ cl;gpupTg;gb

gl;lh vz;.44y ; ru;Nt vz;. 95/2A

eQ;ir Vu;] ; 0.12.0 vd

cl;gpupthfpAs;s ru;Nt vz;zpy;

fl;Lg;gl;lJ.

2. Nkw;gb Nkyf;fz;lkq;fyk;

fpuhkj;jpy ; igkh] ; ek;gu;.154>

155> 158> ru;Nt vz;.33/1 GQ;ir

Vf;fu ; 3 nrz;L 88f;F Vu;;];;

1.57.0f;F khy;:-

eQ;ir khYf;Fk; tlf;F

jpUNkdp ehjd ; nrl;bahu;

GQ;irf;Fk; fpof;F

jpUNkdp ehjd ; nrl;bahu;

GQ;irf;Fk; njw;F

jpUNkdp ehjd ; nrl;bahu;

GQ;irf;Fk; Nkw;F

,jw;Fs;gl;lJ. Nkw;gb

nrhj;J jw;NghJ cl;gpupTg;gb

gl;lh vz;.75y ; ru;Nt

vz;.33/14A GQ;ir Vu;]; 0.35.25

vdTk;> gl;lh vz;.2020y; ru;Nt

vz;.33/14B GQ;ir Vu;]; 0.60.75

vdTk;> gl;lh vz;.75y ; ru;Nt

vz;.33/12 GQ;ir Vu;]; 0.22.5

vdTk;> gl;lh vz;.1994y; ru;Nt

vz;.33/4 GQ;ir Vu;] ; 0.30.0

vdTk;> cl;gpupthfpAs;s ru;Nt

vz;fspy; fl;Lg;gl;lJ.

7. Independently, it appears that the petitioner has also approached the

jurisdictional Tahsildar at Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District, on 15.02.2023

for issuance of patta in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.95/2 and 33/1, which

is sought to be settled in favour of the son. The request of the petitioner for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page7 of 18

issuance of patta for the lands in the above survey numbers was rejected by the

jurisdictional Tahsildar in his proceedings bearing reference in

Na.Ka.A3/3281/2023 dated 03.01.2025. Text of the above said order is

reproduced:-

''vq;fsJ kWg;G: vq;fsJ gl;lh khWjy; tpzg;gq;fspy;

$wg;gl;l fzpdp gl;lh vz;fs;.44 kw;Wk ; 75 ,tw;wpd;

cupikahsu;fs; ,we;J tpl;ldu; vd;gJk ; mtu;fsJ thupRfs;

vd;Wk; $wpf;nfhs;Sk; egu;fs; mDgtj;J tUfpd;wdu;.

,yf;fk ; 9y ; $wg;gl;Ls;s cr;rePjpkd;w Civil Appeal

No.1382/2022 jPu;g;gpd;gb Nkw;$wpa nrhj;Jf;fspy ; KO

cupikahsuhd (fpiuak ; kw;Wk; gjpag;gl;l capy ; %yk;)

vdf;Nf gl;lh kw;Wk; mDgt cupik toq;fg;glNtz;Lk;. MfNt

,we;jtu;fspd; ngaupy; ,Uf;Fk; Nkw;fz;l fzdp gl;lhf;fs; 44

kw;Wk; 75 ,it js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;L vd; ngaupy; gl;lh khWjy;

nra;ag;gl Ntz;Lk;.

11) MfNt tl;lhl;rpaupd; ,yf;fk; 1y; fhzg;gl;l tl;lhl;rpaupd;

cj;juit vjpu;f;Fk ; ,e;j kDit mq;fPfupj;J vdJ gl;lh

khWjy ; tpz;zg;gq;fis mq;fPfupf;f jho;ikAld ; gzpe;J

Ntz;LfpNwd;.''

8. The said order has been challenged by the Petitioner before the District

Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District.

9. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that against the order of the Tahsildar dated 03.01.2025, an

Appeal dated 10.02.2025 is pending before the District Revenue Officer,

Virudhunagar District.

10. It appears that in respect of the above lands, pattas have also been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page8 of 18

issued in the name of the sons of Siraimeeta Thevar and his descendants, as

detailed below:

S.NoPatta No. Name Survey No. Extent

1. 44 Kilavan 95/2A 12 ares

(30 cents)

2. 2020Subramania Thevar @

Karuppasamy Thevar and

his sons,

Muruganandam (R5),

Rajendran (R4), and

Chellapandi (R3)

33/14B 60.75 ares

(1 acre 50

cents)

3. 1994Indirani (R6) and

Latha (R7) (daughters of

Subramania Thevar @

Karuppasamy Thevar)

33/4 30 ares

(74 cents)

4. 75 Subramania Thevar @

Karuppasamy Thevar

33/14A 35.25 ares

(87 cents)

11. The private respondents, who were subsequently impleaded before

this Court, namely, respondents 3 to 7, are the grandchildren of Siraimeeta

Thevar through his second son, namely, Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy

Thevar, through his wife, namely, Somasundaramal.

12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page9 of 18

petitioner has been in possession of the property since the execution of the

registered Will dated 15.12.1965, registered as Doc.No.30 of 1965, by the said

Rathinammal in favour of the petitioner.

13. To substantiate his case, the learned Senior Counsel also drew

attention to the following two decisions of this Court:

1.Amulraj vs. The Sub Registrar (W.P.(MD) No.11299 of 2025

dated 23.04.2025); and

2.D.Sivakumar vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai

and others (W.P.No.25546 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025).

14. The learned counsel for the private respondents 3 to 7, on the other

hand, would submit that there is no proof that the petitioner is in possession of

the property which is said to have been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner

pursuant to the aforesaid registered Will in Doc.No.30 of 1965 dated

15.12.1965.

15. That apart, it is submitted that these properties in Survey Nos.33/1

and 95/2, measuring an extent of 75 cents and 31 cents, respectively, were

purchased by the private respondents' mother namely, Somasundarammal [wife

of Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar, who is the second son of

Siraimeeta Thevar] from another person also named Subramania Thevar, son of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page10 of 18

one Kandasamy Thevar vide registered Sale Deed in Doc. No.228 of 1991 dated

14.03.1991, in respect of the which patta was also issued in the name of the

private respondents' mother, namely, Somasundaramal, wife of Subramania

Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar in Patta No.297.

16. That apart, it is submitted that the private respondents' mother

namely, Somasundaramal had earlier executed a registered Sale Agreement in

Doc. No.604/2001 dated 12.03.2001, in favour of one Pandi which was later

cancelled on 17.09.2018 by Doc. No.1862 of 2018.

17. It is further submitted that during the interregnum, the properties were

sold to one Ramasamy Naicker by Doc. No.389 of 2004 dated 18.03.2004 by

the private respondents' mother namely, Somasundaramal, as follows:

S.No.Survey No. Extent

1. 95/1 37 cents

2. 95/2B 31 cents

3. 33/1A1F1A1

33/4

75 cents

4. 33/1A1F1A1 1 acre 50 cents

18. It is the further case of the private respondents that after the death of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page11 of 18

the said Ramasamy Naicker, the lands which were earlier conveyed to

Ramasamy Naicker on 18.03.2004 under registered Doc. No.389 of 2004 were

purchased back by the private respondents herein from his legal heirs, namely,

Kanagaraj, Kuruvammal and Subbulakshmi by the following Sale Deeds:

S. No.Date Document No. Claimants Survey No Extent

1.26.03.2025 848/2025 Indirani & Latha33/1A1F1A175 cents

2.26.03.2025 849/2025

Muruganantham,

Rejendran and

Chellapandi

95/1

95/2B

33/1A1F1A1

37 cents

31 cents

56 cents

19. The learned counsel for the private respondents would further submit

that pattas in respect of these lands stand in the name of the private respondents

right from inception, after the initial purchase was made on 14.03.1991 from

Subramania Thevar by their mother late Somasundaramal, barring the period

when it was sold to Ramaswamy Naicker in 2004 and that the position was

restored back in 2025, as mentioned above.

20. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there is a contradiction between the

Schedule in the Settlement Deed executed by the petitioner and the Will and

further submits that the request of the petitioner having been rejected by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page12 of 18

jurisdictional Tahsildar on 03.01.2025 for issuance of patta, the contents of

which have been extracted, above question of the registration of Sale Deed does

not arise.

21. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2 would further submit that in the absence of patta, the

registration cannot be entertained in view of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Patta

Pass Book Act, 1983.

22. At this stage, the learned counsel for the private respondents 3 to 7

would further submit that they are in continuous possession of the property and

that they are cultivating the same and have also availed crop loans in respect of

the property and also have dug a well therein.

23. In response to the same, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

would submit that in the suit filed by the private respondents and others, who

are the legal heirs of late.Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar, in

O.S.No.85 of 2013 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai,

the Trial Court, in judgment dated 27.03.2023, has observed that there was no

proof to substantiate that the private respondents were in possession of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page13 of 18

subject property and thereby, dismissed the suit, against which they preferred an

Appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Aruppukottai, which was

dismissed as not pressed on 03.12.2024.

24. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1

and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7.

25. The reasons stated in the impugned Refusal Check Slip purely based

on assumption that the property is not standing in the name of the petitioner /

Gengai Muthu. There is no dispute that the title to the property is traced both by

the petitioner as also the private respondents from one Siraimeeta Thevar, who

is said to have executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Rathinammal as

mentioned above way back in 1944 and 1948. The said Siraimeeta Thevar’s

wife namely, Angammal had also executed a Sale Deed in favour of one

Rathinammal, who is said to be the paternal aunt of the petitioner. The said

Rathinammal’s husband namely, Sakarai Nadar @ Arumuga Nadar is said to be

the petitioner’s father’s elder brother’s wife.

26. It is also evident that the said Rathinammal had executed a registered https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page14 of 18

Will in Document No.30 of 1965 as mentioned above, bequeathing the rights in

the aforementioned property in favour of the petitioner which is sought to be

now settled by the petitioner in favour of son namely, Karthikeyan.

27. On the other hand, Somasundarammal, wife of Subramania Thevar @

Karuppasamy Thevar, who is said to be the daughter-in-law of the said

Siraimeeta Thevar, purchased an extent of 1.06 Acres from another person

named, Subramaniya Thevar, son of Kandasamy Thevar. The husband of the

said Somasundarammal viz., Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar is the

son of the said Siraimeeta Thevar and Angammal. These transactions are of the

year 1991 and thereafter.

28. Prima facie indications are that there is a title dispute. There are also

records to indicate that the private respondents have also obtained Patta in their

name. Further, there are indications that Patta is still standing in the name of the

said Siraimeeta Thevar and his children and grandchildren. The petitioner’s

request for issuance of Patta has also been rejected by the jurisdictional

Tahsildar, in his proceedings dated 03.01.2025.

29. It also appears that the petitioner is not in possession of the land, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page15 of 18

although a registered Will was executed in favour of the petitioner way back in

1965 vide Document No.30/1965, dated 15.12.1965.

30. A Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramayee v. The Sub Registrar,

Salem and another vide its order dated 05.11.2020, W.P.No.674 of 2020, has

held that Patta under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 is

not mandatory for registering of document. In Paragraph 18, the Court has held

as under:-

‘’18. Conspectus of the various provisions referred above make it

clear that the Registering Officer cannot go into the title of the property

in respect of which document is presented. However, under various

provisions he has power to refuse to accept the document for

registration unless mistakes found in the document are set right

properly. Except Section 22-A of the Tamil Nadu Act, other provisions

referred above do not give any power to the registering officer to refuse

to register the document presented by the person executing documents.

Rule 60 also states that the registering officer can only enquire about

the executant and the claimant of the instrument of sale regarding

whose identity he has to satisfy himself. But the provisions does not give

absolute power to refuse registration. As already indicated above, the

purpose and object of the Act is to give a public notice about any

encumbrance in the immovable property.‘’

31. Thus, the fact remains that both the said Siraimeeta Thevar and his

wife, Angammal, had transferred the land in favour of the said Rathinammal

vide Document No.497 of 1944, dated 27.03.1944, and Document No.332 of

1948, dated 24.02.1948. The subsequent alienations of the same property in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page16 of 18

favour of Somasundarammal by Subramania Thevar, S/o.Kandasamy Thevar,

were, therefore, impermissible. Consequently, the said documents, prima facie,

ought not to have been registered by the second respondent.

32. Therefore, to the extent that the lands had already been conveyed

under Document No.497 of 1944, dated 27.03.1944, and Document No.332 of

1948, dated 24.02.1948, and were subsequently bequeathed in favour of the

petitioner by Rathinammal under Document No.30 of 1965, dated 15.12.1965,

the petitioner would be entitled to deal with and settle the said lands, but for the

subsequent registrations.

33. The question as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the land

or not can be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial before the competent

Civil Court. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner as well as the private

respondents to establish their respective title and ownership over the land in

question by instituting appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. In view

of the conflicting entries and registrations in respect of the same property, the

validity of the competing documents cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the

present proceedings. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page17 of 18

34. Accordingly, it is open to the petitioner as well as the private

respondents to work out their respective remedies before the competent Civil

Court, including by seeking a declaration that Document No.497 of 1944, dated

27.03.1944, Document No.332 of 1948, dated 24.02.1948, Document No.848 of

2025, dated 26.03.2025, and Document No.849 of 2025, dated 26.03.2025, are

null and void, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in

Anitha v. Axelin Thiraviyam and Others [W.A.(MD) No.3205 of 2025, dated

04.12.2025].

35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of, with a direction to

the second respondent to register the document only upon the petitioner or the

private respondents, as the case may be, obtaining an appropriate decree from

the competent Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

01-10-2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

smn2

To

1.The District Registrar

Registration Department,

Virudhunagar District.

2.The Sub Registrar,

Thiruchuli Sub Registrar Office,

Virudhunagar District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

__________

Page18 of 18

C.SARAVANAN, J.

smn2

WP(MD) No. 27133 of 2025

01-10-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis