VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Ravikumar R v. The State of Tamilnadu Represented by Its Secretary

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
13 July 2026
Bench
C. Saravananauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 19090/2026

Judgment

ORDER Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondents.

2.By consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3.In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned refusal slip issued by the fourth respondent in his proceedings bearing Refusal No.RFL/Melakarur/129/2026, dated 18.05.2026, whereby the fourth respondent has declined to register the final decree passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.181 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Court at Karur, dated 08.12.2025.

4.It is submitted that the impugned refusal slip is unjustified, as the final decree has been passed in a partition suit.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in M.Devaki Ammal Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and another, W.P.No.27134 of 2024, dated 20.09.2024.

6.The stand of the petitioner that the petitioner is not required to pay the registration charges cannot be countenanced. The requirement of payment of stamp duty is dispensed with, in view of Article 45 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, that would not dispense with the petitioner for the payment of registration charges. The stamp duty, which is payable, is dispensed with, because the petitioner would have paid the Court fee at the time of filing of the suit for partition.

7.Considering the same, this Writ Petition stands disposed of, by directing the fourth respondent to register the final decree passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.181 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Court at Karur, dated 08.12.2025, subject to the petitioner remitting the requisite registration charges, as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall also comply with all other requirements despite with such registration. No costs. Index :

13.07.2026 Internet : mm Note : Issue order copy on 14.07.2026 To

1.The State of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary Registration Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Inspector General of Registration 100 Feet Road Saidapet Chennai - 600 015.

3.The District Registrar Karur District.

4.The Sub-Registrar Melakarur Sub-Registration Office Karur District

C.SARAVANAN, J.

mm

13.07.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN R.Ravikumar ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The State of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary Registration Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Inspector General of Registration 100 Feet Road Saidapet Chennai - 600 015. 3.The District Registrar Karur District. 4.The Sub-Registrar Melakarur Sub-Registration Office Karur District ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the Refusal Slip dated 18.05.2026 issued by the 4th respondent, Sub-Registrar, Melakarur, in connection with the registration of the Final Decree dated 08.12.2025 passed in IA No.04/2025 in OS No. 181/2025 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur, and quash the said Refusal Slip as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and consequently direct the 4th respondent to receive and register the certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.181/2025 dated 08.12.2025 presented by the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anandha Rajagopal For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.