Quick Summary: On January 22, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy of the Madras High Court ordered a second look at two settlement deeds after they were initially turned down because of a pathway issue. The case involves P. Ramanathan trying to give property to his son and sister in Ariyalur District.
P. Ramanathan, from Ariyalur District, filed two requests in the Madras High Court. He wanted to officially record settlement deeds to give property to his son, Baranidharan, and his sister, Buvaneshwari. The properties are located in Palayapadi Village.
The official in charge of recording property transactions in Kilapalur refused to record these deeds on November 4, 2025. The refusal was because there was a 17-foot pathway mentioned in the property details. The official thought this might mean the property layout wasn't approved.
Ramanathan's lawyer argued that the pathway was private and just for access. It wasn't part of any unapproved layout. So, the refusal to record the deeds wasn't right.
"The said pathway is a private pathway intended to enable access and is not on account of an unapproved layout being formed."
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the refusal was only because of the pathway. The court found no proof that the property was part of an unapproved layout. The judge canceled the refusal and sent the case back to the official for another look.
The court ordered the official to reconsider the registration. Ramanathan can show evidence that the properties aren't part of an unapproved layout. The official might check the properties if needed. A decision must be made within a month after Ramanathan submits the deeds again.
"The registering officer shall either register the settlement deeds or issue a speaking order of refusal."
The court decided that Ramanathan should be given another chance to prove that his property deeds should be registered. The official must take a second look and decide within a month.
