Madras High Court
D.Dhananjeyan vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 11 September, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.13429 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.13429 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.13534 and 13536 of 2019
1. D.Dhananjeyan
2. Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.
2. The District Registrar,
Chidambaram,
Chidambaram Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Puduchatram, Bhuvanagiri Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
4. Sivagami
R-4 impleaded vide order dated 08.07.2019 made in
W.M.P.No.19289 of 2019 in W.P.No.13429 of 2019
... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
W.P.No.13429 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records from the respondents and quash the circular passed by the first
respondent in his letter No.18339/C1/2012 dated 25.04.2012 and the
order dated 13.032019 of the third respondent returning the document
dated 13.03.2019 and consequently direct the respondents to register the
settlement deed dated 10.12.2018 executed by the first petition in favour
of the second petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Baskar
For Respondents: Mr.U.Bharanidharan,
Special Government Pleader
(for R1 to R3)
No appearance (for R4)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip
issued by the third respondent dated 13.03.2019, thereby refusing to
register the settlement deed executed by the first petitioner in favour of
the second petitioner, on the ground that there was another registration in
respect of the very same subject property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
2. Though notice was served to the fourth respondent and the name
of the fourth respondent is printed in the cause list, no one appeared on
behalf of the fourth respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
first to third respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. The property comprised in S.No.208/1 to an extent of 1.15 acres,
comprised in S.No.208/2 to an extent of 60 cents, and comprised in
S.No.173/6E to an extent of 32 cents, totaling 2.07 acres, situated at
Villianallur Village, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District, belonged to
the first petitioner. One Chidambara Padayachi had one son and two
daughters, viz., Ramalingam, Sivagami, and Jayalakshmi. The said
Ramalingam got married to the daughter of his sister Sivagami. After his
marriage, he had two sons, viz., Balraj and Sivaraj, and one daughter,
viz., Priya. The said Priya got married to one Suresh Kumar.
4. While being so, the said Ramalingam, who was the Kartha of his
joint family, sold the aforesaid properties to one Elayaperumal, who was
none other than his brother-in-law's brother, by sale deed dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
02.02.1994. Thereafter, the said Ramalingam played a mischief by
including the properties that were sold in favour of the said Elayaperumal
and partitioning the properties along with his sons. The subject properties
were allotted in favour of one Balraj, who is the son of the said
Ramalingam. Thereafter, the said Balraj executed a power of attorney in
favour of his father, Ramalingam.
5. On the strength of the power of attorney, the said Ramalingam
fabricated a sale deed as if it was executed by the said Elayaperumal in
respect of the very same subject property in his favour. Thereafter, the
subject property was sold out in favour of his son-in-law, viz., Suresh
Kumar, by registered sale deed dated 29.06.2009. Therefore, the said
Elayaperumal lodged a complaint. While the enquiry was pending, the
said Ramalingam and his son-in-law Suresh Kumar executed a sale deed
in favour of the said Elayaperumal in respect of the subject property.
Thereafter, the first petitioner purchased the subject property by
registered sale deed dated 24.09.2012 from the said Elayaperumal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
6. While being so, the said Ramalingam filed a vexatious suit in
respect of the subject property, and the same was dismissed. Once again,
the said Balraj also filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2011 for declaration and
injunction in respect of the same subject property. Subsequently, the said
suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015, and the
title was declared in favour of the first petitioner herein.
7. Once again, the said Ramalingam's sister, viz., the said
Sivagami, filed a suit for partition in respect of the subject property in
O.S.No.71 of 2012 before the District cum Judicial Magistrate,
Parangipettai. Subsequently, it was dismissed by the judgment and decree
dated 28.11.2016. Therefore, the title in respect of the subject property
was already declared in favour of the first petitioner.
8. In view of the above, the first petitioner executed a settlement
deed in favour of his wife and presented it for registration. However, it
was returned for the reason that there was already a deed for the very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
same property. As stated supra, the Civil Court now declared the title in
favour of the first petitioner in respect of the subject property. Therefore,
he can deal with the property without any impediment.
9. Though initially there was a sale deed in respect of the very
same property by the said Ramalingam, subsequently, the property was
registered in favour of the first petitioner's vendor, viz., the said
Elayaperumal. Therefore, it would not amount to a double document for
the same property.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned
check slip issued by the third respondent cannot be sustained and is liable
to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned check slip dated 13.03.2019 is
hereby quashed. The first petitioner is at liberty to re-present the
settlement deed executed in favour of the second petitioner for
registration within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the third respondent is directed
to register the same and release it if otherwise in order. It is made clear
that the question of limitation for presentation of the settlement deed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
registration does not arise in this case.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No
costs.
11.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kv
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.
2. The District Registrar,
Chidambaram,
Chidambaram Taluk,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
Cuddalore District.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Puduchatram, Bhuvanagiri Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
11.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 01:20:25 pm )
