Venkatachalam Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Venkatachalam vs The Inspector General of Registration

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1413197

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1413197
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Jan 30, 2026
Case Number: WP/1392/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Venkatachalam

Respondent

The Inspector General of Registration

Excerpt

.....in respect of his property in survey no.322/4a (new s.no.4a1a1a1), measuring to an extent of 3281 sq.ft., situated at mecheri village, mettur taluk, salem district.for petitioner: mr. m.r.jothimanian for respondents: mr.u.baranidharan, spl. g.p.orderasserting ownership over lands in s.no.322/4a of the extent of 3281 sq.ft., the petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 16.12.2025 in favour of his wife and presented the same for registration. the request for registration was declined under the impugned refusal check slip.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for specificperformance had been filed by one duraisamy in o.s.no.62 of 2013. while rejecting the request for specific performance, the petitioner was directed to refund the advance amount of rs.4,00,000/- under judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018. citing non-compliance by the petitioner with such decree, learned counsel submits that the registering officer declined registration. page2 of 43. mr.u.baranidharan, learned special government pleader, accepts notice for all the respondents. he submits that the matter warrants reconsideration.4. on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the request forregistration of the settlement deed was declined solely on the ground that the petitioner had failed to comply with the judgment and decree directing refund of the advance amount of rs.4,00,000/-. it is not within the domain of the registering officer to decline registration on that ground. hence, the impugnedorder is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. as a corollary, the petitioner ispermitted to re-present the settlement deed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. within two weeks therefrom, subject to fulfillment of other requirements relating to registration, the registering officer shall complete registration.5. the writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. there will be no order as to costs. index : yes/no internet:yes/no neutral.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Venkatachalam S/o.Mahalingam, No.9/1-9, Kolkaranur village, Mecheri- 636 453, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ..Petitioner Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration
2. The District Registrar
3. The Sub-Registrar,
..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records Page1 of 4
of the impugned Refusal Slip dated 16.12.2025 in Refusal No.RFL/ Mecheri /58/ 2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the settlement deed of the petitioner dated 16.12.2025 in respect of his property in survey No.322/4A (New S.No.4A1A1A1), measuring to an extent of 3281 sq.ft., situated at Mecheri village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
For Petitioner: Mr. M.R.Jothimanian For Respondents: Mr.U.Baranidharan, Spl. G.P.

ORDER

Asserting ownership over lands in S.No.322/4A of the extent of 3281 sq.ft., the petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 16.12.2025 in favour of his wife and presented the same for registration. The request for registration was declined under the impugned refusal check slip.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for specific

performance had been filed by one Duraisamy in O.S.No.62 of 2013. While rejecting the request for specific performance, the petitioner was directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018. Citing non-compliance by the petitioner with such decree, learned counsel submits that the registering officer declined registration. Page2 of 4

3. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for all the respondents. He submits that the matter warrants reconsideration.

4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the request for

registration of the settlement deed was declined solely on the ground that the petitioner had failed to comply with the judgment and decree directing refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. It is not within the domain of the registering officer to decline registration on that ground. Hence, the impugned

order is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. As a corollary, the petitioner is

permitted to re-present the settlement deed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within two weeks therefrom, subject to fulfillment of other requirements relating to registration, the registering officer shall complete registration.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kj Page3 of 4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

KJ To 1.The Inspector General of Registration 2.The District Registrar 3.The Sub-Registrar, Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Venkatachalam vs The Inspector General of Registration Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy