Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. The Sub Registrars Office

ORDER Challenge was made against the refusal check slip dated 19.06.2026 in this writ petition.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that property was acquired by virtue of partition deed by filing a partition suit in O.S.No.7101 of 2011 before VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai which was decreed on

14.10.2019. The respondent refused to register the document on the following two grounds:-

(a) Original parent document has not been produced.

(b) The Hon'ble VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.7101 of 2011 did not attain its finality.

2.1. The learned counsel submits that despite Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908 having been struck down, by this Court, the respondent has refused to register the Settlement Deed on the ground that original parent document has not been produced. Further, the decree in O.S.No.7101 of 2011 attained finality and no appeal has been preferred.

¶3The learned Government counsel submits that if the document is represented, the same will be taken up for registration in accordance with law Page3 of 5 and the impugned Refusal on the ground that original parent document not produced is erroneous one as Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908 is struck down by this Court.

¶4As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government counsel for the respondent, the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 19.06.2026 is not sustainable when the certified copy of the decree and judgment passed by the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is produced which serves as a title document for the petitioner.

¶5In the light of the above reasoning, the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 19.06.2026 is hereby set aside.

¶6The petitioner is directed to represent the document for registration. Upon such representation, the respondent is directed to consider the said document for registration without insisting upon the original parent document, as the same is not required for the purpose of registration since Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908 has been struck down by this Court.

¶7Upon representation of the document by the petitioner, the respondent is directed to register the settlement deed in accordance with law, by following Page4 of 5 the legal principles enshrined in the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) Nos. 7415, 6183 & 9526 of 2026 dated 23.06.2026 (M/s. Dugars, represented by its Partner, Manjo Kumar Dugar, Son of Amar Chand Dugar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Registration Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and others). 22-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order NVSRI To The Sub Registrars Office Royapuram Chennai 600021. WPoNo.o28375oofo2026 KRISHNANoRAMASAMY,oJ. NVSRI WPoNo.o28375oofo2026 22-07-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Mrs.Dhanalakshmi W/o.Raghupathy No.2 Selliyamman Kovil 1st Cross Street Irumpuliyur, Tambaram Chennai 600059. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Sub Registrars Office Royapuram Chennai 600021. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to the Impugned Order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the respondent through a refusal check slip vide Refusal No.RFL/Royapuram/22/2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner and to return the documents after the compliance of registration and pass. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.SATHYARAJ For Respondent(s): Mr.Dominic S.David Government Counsel Page2 of 5