Madathiyammal v. The Inspector General of Registration
WA(MD)/1045/2026 · 2026-07-23
C V Karthikeyan, R Sakthivel
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 57154 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 57154 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
W.A.(MD).No.1045 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL W.A(MD) No.1045 of 2026 Madathiyammal ...... Appellant Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhom High Road, Chennai – 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, No.99, Samy Santhai Street, Tenkasi – 627 811. 3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. ...... Respondents PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed in W.P(MD) No.18370 of 2026 dated 02.07.2026 as devoid of merits, unsustainable in law. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.1045 of 2026 For Appellant : Mr.M.Santhanamari For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil Counsel for State of TN O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.] This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.18370 of 2026, dated
02.07.2026. 2. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The said writ petition questioned a Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Sankarankovil/63/2026, dated 17.06.2026 and sought to quash the same and further sought a direction to the 3rd respondent / Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District, to register a settlement deed dated 17.06.2026 in favour of the petitioner, executed by one Madathiyammal with respect to the undivided share in her properties comprised in Survey Nos.752, 739/2, 740 and 741, situated at South Sankarankovil Village, Tenkasi District. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.1045 of 2026
3. We are consciously not entering into the facts of the case, because any order of the Sub Registrar refusing to register a document can be further appealed before the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. 4.The learned Single Judge, in his order, had examined the reasons given for refusing to register the document. The first reason was the failure to produce the legal heirship certificate of Karuppiah Mooppanar, to whom the vendor, Madathiyammal, claims to be the daughter and the second reason was failure to produce the original parent document. The learned Single Judge had stated that the objection relating to the production of the parent document cannot be sustained and therefore, had directed registration of the document dehors the production of the original parent document.
However, with respect to the production of the legal heirship certificate, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the same should be produced. Questioning that particular observation of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.1045 of 2026
5. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the affidavit filed by him, stating that those who had sworn to the affidavit alone are the legal heirs of late Karuppiah Mooppanar. However, one of the grandsons of Karuppiah Mooppanar had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No. 8969 of 2026, dated 02.04.2026, wherein he had also challenged a refusal check slip and claimed that Karuppiah Mooppanar had three sons, namely, Periyasamy Mooppanar, Seenisamy Mooppanar and Arumugasamy Mooppanar and he had not stated anything about any daughter of Karuppiah Mooppanar. 6. We are not entering into any discussion about the status of the vendor of the property to the appellant herein, but would request the appellant to file an appeal before the Registrar under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 and seek a request to re-examine the entire issue on the basis of the facts as presented by the appellant herein. 7. In the result, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. We are conscious that the Refusal Check Slip was issued on 17.06.2026 and that ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.1045 of 2026 the time prescribed under Section 72 to file an appeal is 30 days. We, however, extend the time for filing the appeal by a further period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. No costs. [C.V.K., J.] & [R.S.V., J.]
23.07.2026 NCC : Yes Index : Yes ta To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhom High Road, Chennai – 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, No.99, Samy Santhai Street, Tenkasi – 627 811. 3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.1045 of 2026 C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J. ta W.A(MD) No.1045 of 2026 23.07.2026 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis