WP(MD)/29071/2026 of Dhanalakshmi Vs The Joint Sub Registrar-II on 8 October 2026

ORDER

WP(MD) No. 29071 of 2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

2. By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. This writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent vide Refusal No. RFL/2, Joint Sub- Registrar, Virudhunagar, bearing No. 40/2026, dated 19.09.2026, and consequently to direct the respondent to receive and register the Settlement Deed in TP/305420003/2026, dated 19.09.2026, executed by the petitioner in favour of Gowri, the petitioner's daughter, in respect of the house-site property situated within the Virudhunagar Registration District and the jurisdiction of the Joint Sub-Registrar No. 2, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar Taluk, in Virudhunagar Municipal Town, Survey Ward No. 18, Block No. 9, Soundra Pandian Road, forming part of T.S. No. 679, as per sub-division T.S. No. 679/2A, bearing Old Door No. 1 (northern portion) and New Door No. 6/B, and to direct the respondent to act in accordance with law.

4. A refusal check slip was issued in respect of the settlement deed sought to be executed by the petitioner in favour of her daughter, stating that the partition deed under which the property had devolved upon the petitioner's husband was required to be produced.

WP(MD) No. 29071 of 2026

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the property originally belonged to the petitioner's husband's family and that, pursuant to an oral arrangement, the property described in the schedule to the settlement deed was allotted to the petitioner's husband. Thereafter, the revenue records were mutated and continue to stand in the name of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner is now seeking to execute a settlement deed in respect of her share in the property belonging to her husband.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner's husband was a party to the said oral arrangement and that insisting upon the production of a partition deed, which was never executed between the parties, would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel prays that this Court may grant the relief sought for in the writ petition.

7. Countering the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the property admittedly belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner's husband and that the petitioner's husband acquired the property pursuant to an arrangement among the family members. Therefore, such an arrangement ought to be substantiated by a partition deed, otherwise,

WP(MD) No. 29071 of 2026 there is a possibility of third-party claims being raised in respect of the property. He would further submit that the patta, by itself, cannot be treated as proof of title so as to sustain the petitioner's claim.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record.

9. The petitioner relies upon an oral arrangement among her husband's family members and seeks to substantiate the same by relying on the grant of patta in favour of her husband in respect of the property sought to be conveyed under the settlement deed.

10. It is true that the patta cannot be treated as proof of title. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the property belonged to the family of the petitioner's husband and was partitioned through an oral arrangement, the same could be substantiated by the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner's husband, as any proceedings granting patta in his favour would have been challenged if there had been any claim by any of his family members. In that regard, this Court is of the view that the settlement deed sought to be executed by the petitioner in favour of her daughter in respect of her share in the property could be entertained without insisting upon the production of a partition deed.

WP(MD) No. 29071 of 2026

11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed, and the impugned refusal check slip dated 19.09.2026 stands set aside. The respondent is directed to receive and register the settlement deed when re-presented by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Nsr To: The Joint Sub Registrar-II Sub Registrar Office, Virudhunagar

WP(MD) No. 29071 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. Nsr WP(MD) No. 29071 of 2026 08-10-2026