Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29074/2026 of Ratha D Vs The District Registrar on 8 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29074 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 29074 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011436382026}
D.Ratha
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Registrar,
Palani Registration District,
Palani,
Dindigul DistrictDindigul
2. The Joint I Sub Registrar,
Palani Sub-Registrar Office,
Palani,
Dindigul District
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:
Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, by calling for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal slip in RFL/No.1
Joint Sub Registrar Palani/87/2026 dated 29.09.2026, to set aside and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 2nd Respondent to register the Simple mortgage Deed dated 29.09.2026 presented by the petitioner for registration.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.G. Subiksha
For Respondent(s):
Mr.I.Pinaygash
Special Government Pleader
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
WP(MD) No. 29074 of 2026
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal slip dated 29.09.2026 and directing the 2nd Respondent to register the Simple mortgage Deed dated 29.09.2026 presented by the petitioner for registration.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
(i) One Ramasubbu owned a land to an extent of 51.74 acres at Palani Taluk. He has two wives, three sons and two daughters. The said Ramasubbu executed a registered partition deed dated 14.02.1986 partitioning his properties in favour of his three sons and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the meantime, the daughter of Ramasubbu, had created a forged and unregistered Will dated 05.09.1983 and executed a power deed in favour of one Arulkumaran. Based on the same, the said Arulkumaran had executed a sale deed in favour of some third parties.
(ii) After knowing the said illegal transfer, the son of Ramasubbu, namely Ravichandran, has filed as suit in O.S.No.265 of 2014 against his sister, who set up an independent title by way of a Will said to have been
WP(MD) No. 29074 of 2026 executed by her father, for declaration in respect of the property allotted to him on the basis of the partition deed dated 14.02.1986. While disposing the suit, the trial Court has held that the partition deed dated 14.02.1986 is not binding on the daughter of Ramasubbu, since she has not been made as a party to the partition deed dated 14.02.1986 and the partition deed would be valid only in respect of the plaintiff therein alone. The civil Court has come to the conclusion that the subsequent documents based on the said partition deed, dated 14.02.1986 are not valid in the eye of law. Therefore, on the basis of that finding, now the impugned order has been passed.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials placed on record.
6. Originally, the property was owned by one Ramasubbu. He had three sons and two daughters. A partition deed has been entered among his sons on 14.02.1986. The daughters were not included in the partition deed. Be that as it may, now the daughter claimed an independent title on the basis of the Will, which was rejected by the trial court. The daughter has not filed a separate suit for partition till now.
7. Be that as it may, the petitioner's predecessors purchased the subject property on the basis of the allotment made to one of the co-owners, namely Rajendran vide partition deed dated 14.02.1986. Based on that purchase, it appears that a layout has already been developed and the property has been dealt with. Several purchasers including the petitioner
WP(MD) No. 29074 of 2026 has purchased the property to an extent of 3 to 5 cents each. Therefore, even assuming that there was no valid partition, this Court is of the view that it cannot be a ground to be a total bar to sell all the properties. Such being the position, as long as no partition suit is filed by the other co-owner in respect of the property already dealt with and purchased by several persons, those persons cannot be denied their right of enjoyment of their property. It is for the concerned parties to claim necessary partition before the competent civil Court. The petitioner, having purchased the properties long back, is entitled to claim equity even in the event of shares have been allotted to the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.265 of 2014.
8. In such view of he matter, this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the second respondent dated 29.09.2026 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to continue the registration of the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Nsr To:
1. The District Registrar, Palani Registration District, Palani, Dindigul DistrictDindigul
2. The Joint I Sub Registrar, Palani Sub-Registrar Office, Palani, Dindigul District.
WP(MD) No. 29074 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. Nsr WP(MD) No. 29074 of 2026 08-10-2026