(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertain to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Thiruchuli/24/2025 dated 22.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to register the settlement deed dated 22.09.2025 presented by the petitioner in favour of his son namely, G.Karthikeyan in respect of the property situated in Bymash No.28/6, Survey No.95/2 to an extent of 16 cents and Bymash No.154, 155, 156, Survey No.33/1 to an extent of 3 acres and 88 cents, Melakandamangalam Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.)
1. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Refusal Check Slip bearing reference in Refusal No.RFL/Thiruchuli/24/2025 dated 22.09.2025, whereby the Settlement Deed dated 22.09.2025 executed by the petitioner in favour of his son, G.Karthikeyan, has been returned with the following observations:
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 4 acres in Survey Nos.95/2A and 33/1, by virtue of two Sale Deeds, namely, Doc.No.497/1944 dated 27.03.1944, measuring an extent of 16 cents, and Doc. No.332/1948 dated 24.02.1948, measuring an extent of 3.84 acres.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the first mentioned document was executed by one Siraimeeta Thevar, for himself and his minor sons, namely, Karuppanadevar, Karuppasamy Thevar @ Subramania Thevar and Kilavan to one Rathinammal and after his death, the second mentioned document was executed by his three minor sons namely Karuppanadevar, Karuppasamy Thevar @ Subramania Thevar and Kilavan through their mother, namely, Angammal, who is the wife of the said Siraimeeta Thevar in favour of the said Rathinammal.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Rathinammal did not have any issues and therefore, had executed a registered Will which was registered as Doc.No.30/1965 dated 15.12.1965, in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner as the nephew of the said Rathinammal, bequeathed the above properties purchased by her under the above two mentioned documents and by virtue of the registered Will .
5. For the sake of clarity, the property purchased by the said Rathinammal and in respect of which the Will was executed by the said Rathinammal in favour of the petitioner are reproduced below:
| S.No | Doc.No. & Date | Document | Executant | Claimant | Survey Number | Extent |
| 1. | 497/1944 & 27.03.1944 | Sale Deed | Siraimeeta Thevar and his three sons | Rathinammal | 95/2A | 16 cents |
| 2. | 332/1948 & 24.02.1948 | Sale Deed | Angammal and her three sons | Rathinammal | 33/1 | 3 acre 88 cents |
| 3. | 30/1965 & 15.12.1965 | Will | Rathinammal | Gengai Muthu | 95/2A 33/1 | 16 cents 3 acre 88 cents |
7. Independently, it appears that the petitioner has also approached the jurisdictional Tahsildar at Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District, on 15.02.2023 for issuance of patta in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.95/2 and 33/1, which is sought to be settled in favour of the son. The request of the petitioner for issuance of patta for the lands in the above survey numbers was rejected by the jurisdictional Tahsildar in his proceedings bearing reference in Na.Ka.A3/3281/2023 dated 03.01.2025. Text of the above said order is reproduced:-
8. The said order has been challenged by the Petitioner before the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District.
9. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that against the order of the Tahsildar dated 03.01.2025, an Appeal dated 10.02.2025 is pending before the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District.
10. It appears that in respect of the above lands, pattas have also been issued in the name of the sons of Siraimeeta Thevar and his descendants, as detailed below:
| S.No | Patta No. | Name | Survey No. | Extent |
| 1. | 44 | Kilavan | 95/2A | 12 ares (30 cents) |
| 2. | 2020 | Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar and his sons, Muruganandam (R5), Rajendran (R4), and Chellapandi (R3) | 33/14B | 60.75 ares (1 acre 50 cents) |
| 3. | 1994 | Indirani (R6) and Latha (R7) (daughters of Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar) | 33/4 | 30 ares (74 cents) |
| 4. | 75 | Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar | 33/14A | 35.25 ares (87 cents) |
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in possession of the property since the execution of the registered Will dated 15.12.1965, registered as Doc.No.30 of 1965, by the said Rathinammal in favour of the petitioner.
13. To substantiate his case, the learned Senior Counsel also drew attention to the following two decisions of this Court:
1. Amulraj vs. The Sub Registrar (W.P.(MD) No.11299 of 2025 dated 23.04.2025); and
2. D.Sivakumar vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others (W.P.No.25546 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025).
14. The learned counsel for the private respondents 3 to 7, on the other hand, would submit that there is no proof that the petitioner is in possession of the property which is said to have been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid registered Will in Doc.No.30 of 1965 dated 15.12.1965.
15. That apart, it is submitted that these properties in Survey Nos.33/1 and 95/2, measuring an extent of 75 cents and 31 cents, respectively, were purchased by the private respondents' mother namely, Somasundarammal [wife of Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar, who is the second son of Siraimeeta Thevar] from another person also named Subramania Thevar, son of one Kandasamy Thevar vide registered Sale Deed in Doc. No.228 of 1991 dated 14.03.1991, in respect of the which patta was also issued in the name of the private respondents' mother, namely, Somasundaramal, wife of Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar in Patta No.297.
16. That apart, it is submitted that the private respondents' mother namely, Somasundaramal had earlier executed a registered Sale Agreement in Doc. No.604/2001 dated 12.03.2001, in favour of one Pandi which was later cancelled on 17.09.2018 by Doc. No.1862 of 2018.
17. It is further submitted that during the interregnum, the properties were sold to one Ramasamy Naicker by Doc. No.389 of 2004 dated 18.03.2004 by the private respondents' mother namely, Somasundaramal, as follows:
| S.No. | Survey No. | Extent |
| 1. | 95/1 | 37 cents |
| 2. | 95/2B | 31 cents |
| 3. | 33/1A1F1A1 33/4 | 75 cents |
| 4. | 33/1A1F1A1 | 1 acre 50 cents |
| S. No. | Date | Document No. | Claimants | Survey No | Extent |
| 1. | 26.03.2025 | 848/2025 | Indirani & Latha | 33/1A1F1A1 | 75 cents |
| 2. | 26.03.2025 | 849/2025 | Muruganantham, Rejendran and Chellapandi | 95/1 95/2B 33/1A1F1A1 | 37 cents 31 cents 56 cents |
20. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there is a contradiction between the Schedule in the Settlement Deed executed by the petitioner and the Will and further submits that the request of the petitioner having been rejected by the jurisdictional Tahsildar on 03.01.2025 for issuance of patta, the contents of which have been extracted, above question of the registration of Sale Deed does not arise.
21. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would further submit that in the absence of patta, the registration cannot be entertained in view of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983.
22. At this stage, the learned counsel for the private respondents 3 to 7 would further submit that they are in continuous possession of the property and that they are cultivating the same and have also availed crop loans in respect of the property and also have dug a well therein.
23. In response to the same, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the suit filed by the private respondents and others, who are the legal heirs of late.Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar, in O.S.No.85 of 2013 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai, the Trial Court, in judgment dated 27.03.2023, has observed that there was no proof to substantiate that the private respondents were in possession of the subject property and thereby, dismissed the suit, against which they preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Aruppukottai, which was dismissed as not pressed on 03.12.2024.
24. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7.
25. The reasons stated in the impugned Refusal Check Slip purely based on assumption that the property is not standing in the name of the petitioner / Gengai Muthu. There is no dispute that the title to the property is traced both by the petitioner as also the private respondents from one Siraimeeta Thevar, who is said to have executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Rathinammal as mentioned above way back in 1944 and 1948. The said Siraimeeta Thevar’s wife namely, Angammal had also executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Rathinammal, who is said to be the paternal aunt of the petitioner. The said Rathinammal’s husband namely, Sakarai Nadar @ Arumuga Nadar is said to be the petitioner’s father’s elder brother’s wife.
26. It is also evident that the said Rathinammal had executed a registered Will in Document No.30 of 1965 as mentioned above, bequeathing the rights in the aforementioned property in favour of the petitioner which is sought to be now settled by the petitioner in favour of son namely, Karthikeyan.
27. On the other hand, Somasundarammal, wife of Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar, who is said to be the daughter-in-law of the said Siraimeeta Thevar, purchased an extent of 1.06 Acres from another person named, Subramaniya Thevar, son of Kandasamy Thevar. The husband of the said Somasundarammal viz., Subramania Thevar @ Karuppasamy Thevar is the son of the said Siraimeeta Thevar and Angammal. These transactions are of the year 1991 and thereafter.
28. Prima facie indications are that there is a title dispute. There are also records to indicate that the private respondents have also obtained Patta in their name. Further, there are indications that Patta is still standing in the name of the said Siraimeeta Thevar and his children and grandchildren. The petitioner’s request for issuance of Patta has also been rejected by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, in his proceedings dated 03.01.2025.
29. It also appears that the petitioner is not in possession of the land, although a registered Will was executed in favour of the petitioner way back in 1965 vide Document No.30/1965, dated 15.12.1965.
30. A Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramayee v. The Sub Registrar, Salem and another vide its order dated 05.11.2020, W.P.No.674 of 2020, has held that Patta under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 is not mandatory for registering of document. In Paragraph 18, the Court has held as under:-
‘’18. Conspectus of the various provisions referred above make it clear that the Registering Officer cannot go into the title of the property in respect of which document is presented. However, under various provisions he has power to refuse to accept the document for registration unless mistakes found in the document are set right properly. Except Section 22-A of the Tamil Nadu Act, other provisions referred above do not give any power to the registering officer to refuse to register the document presented by the person executing documents. Rule 60 also states that the registering officer can only enquire about the executant and the claimant of the instrument of sale regarding whose identity he has to satisfy himself. But the provisions does not give absolute power to refuse registration. As already indicated above, the purpose and object of the Act is to give a public notice about any encumbrance in the immovable property.‘’
31. Thus, the fact remains that both the said Siraimeeta Thevar and his wife, Angammal, had transferred the land in favour of the said Rathinammal vide Document No.497 of 1944, dated 27.03.1944, and Document No.332 of 1948, dated 24.02.1948. The subsequent alienations of the same property in favour of Somasundarammal by Subramania Thevar, S/o.Kandasamy Thevar, were, therefore, impermissible. Consequently, the said documents, prima facie, ought not to have been registered by the second respondent.
32. Therefore, to the extent that the lands had already been conveyed under Document No.497 of 1944, dated 27.03.1944, and Document No.332 of 1948, dated 24.02.1948, and were subsequently bequeathed in favour of the petitioner by Rathinammal under Document No.30 of 1965, dated 15.12.1965, the petitioner would be entitled to deal with and settle the said lands, but for the subsequent registrations.
33. The question as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the land or not can be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial before the competent Civil Court. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner as well as the private respondents to establish their respective title and ownership over the land in question by instituting appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. In view of the conflicting entries and registrations in respect of the same property, the validity of the competing documents cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present proceedings.
34. Accordingly, it is open to the petitioner as well as the private respondents to work out their respective remedies before the competent Civil Court, including by seeking a declaration that Document No.497 of 1944, dated 27.03.1944, Document No.332 of 1948, dated 24.02.1948, Document No.848 of 2025, dated 26.03.2025, and Document No.849 of 2025, dated 26.03.2025, are null and void, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Anitha v. Axelin Thiraviyam and Others [W.A.(MD) No.3205 of 2025, dated 04.12.2025].
35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of, with a direction to the second respondent to register the document only upon the petitioner or the private respondents, as the case may be, obtaining an appropriate decree from the competent Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.