Kumarasamy Ponnayan v. The Inspector General of Registration

Order This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated

22.05.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner had presented a settlement deed for the purpose of registration before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent had refused to register the said document vide the impugned order by questioning the ownership of the property.

¶3Further, he would submit that the subject property was settled in favour of petitioner by his father and till date, no objection was received from any 3rd parties with regard to the registration of document, pertaining to the subject property. Under these circumstances, 2nd respondent has no authority to question the ownership and reject the registration of the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner. However, without any application of mind, he refused to register the same vide a non-speaking order, which is not proper. Hence, this petition. Page3 of 6

¶4In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had confirmed that it is a non-speaking order and hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶6In the case on hand, a settlement deed, pertaining to the subject property, was executed in favour of the petitioner by his father. When the said deed was presented before the respondent for the purpose of registration, the 2nd respondent had refused to register it vide the impugned order by questioning the ownership of the property.

¶7As rightly contended by the petitioner, the aforesaid settlement deed was executed by the petitioner's father in favour of the petitioner and also no objection was raised from any of the 3rd parties in respect to the registration of the said deed till date. Further, it was submitted by the petitioner that the patta, pertaining to the subject property, stands in the name of petitioner's father, who executed the settlement deed. In such case, the 2nd respondent has no authority to examine the aspect of ownership or determine the title over the subject property and hence, it is clear that the impugned refusal order was passed beyond the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. Page4 of 6

¶8Further, upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it is a non-speaking order, which was passed without assigning any proper reason. When such being the case, this Court is of the clear view that the impugned order was passed in total non-application of mind and hence, it is liable to be set aside.

¶9At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks leave of this Court to conduct enquiry and thereafter, register the settlement deed, if it is otherwise in order.

¶10However, this Court is not inclined to accede to the above request made by the respondent. In this case, the 2nd respondent had already rejected the registration of petitioner's settlement deed by suspecting the ownership of the petitioner. Now, it was clearly explained that the said settlement deed was executed by the petitioner's father in favour of the petitioner and till date, no objection was raised by any of the 3rd parties, either before the 2nd respondent or before this Court for registration of settlement deed, pertaining to the subject property. When such being the case, this Court does not find any substance in the submission made by the respondent and hence, the same is hereby rejected.

¶11Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.05.2026 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to re-present the settlement deed dated 22.05.2026. Upon Page5 of 6 re-presentation, the 2nd respondent is directed to register the same within a period of 48 hours therefrom.

¶12With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.

¶13Post this matter on 05.08.2026 for reporting compliance. 17-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsa To

¶1The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028

¶2The Sub Registrar Annur, CSR Nagar, Avanashi road, Annur, Coimbatore -641 653 WPoNo.o20564oofo2026 KRISHNANoRAMASAMYoJ. nsa WPoNo.o20564oofo2026 17-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Kumarasamy Ponnayan S/o. Ponnayan, No.6/205A, Kulathu Thottam, Kampanayakanpalayam, Karegoundenpalayam, Annur, Coimbatore -641 697 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028 2. The Sub Registrar Annur, CSR Nagar, Avanashi road, Annur, Coimbatore -641 653 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in RFL/Annur/50/2026 dated 22.05.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non est in law and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 22.05.2026 and release the same to the petitioner within the time frame stipulated by this Honble Court For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Nandhakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Roshan Atiq, Govt. counsel Page2 of 6