Madras High Court
M.Gopu Madhavan vs The Sub Registrar on 5 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.14623 of 2021
M.Gopu Madhavan .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
No.1, Joint Sub Registration Office,
Namakkal.
.. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent in Refusal Check
Slip No.RFL/No.1 Joint Sub Registrar, Namakkal/6/2021 dated 30.04.2021
and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and
consequently directing the respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated
30.04.2021.
For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Suresh
For Respondent .. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
(Govt. Advocate)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the respondent herein in
issuing a check slip refusing to register a document of sale presented by him,
by which he wanted to convey by way of a Settlement Deed land measuring
8.24 acres out of a larger portion of 9.63 acres which along with another
land of measuring 10.47 acres, he had purchased by way of four registered
Sale Deeds dated 05.02.2004 and 08.03.2004 registered as Document
Nos.213, 363, 1432 and 495 of 2004 in the office of the respondent itself.
2.The petitioner had thereafter sold the other portion namely, 10.47
acres to a Trust, namely, Amuthasurabi Educational Trust in which he is
also a trustee. The said trust had mortgaged the said lands of 10.47 acres
with Religare Finvest Limited, Coimbatore. At the time of entering into such
a mortgage, the entire parent deeds had been given to the mortgagee.
3.As stated, now the petitioner had dealt with 8.24 acres out of 9.63
acres by way of the Settlement Deed. The respondent refused to register the
document claiming that the original parent title deed will have to be given.
The parent title deed is now in the possession of mortgagee. They had given
a no objection certificate on 27.04.2015 claiming that they have no objection
for transfer or encumbering the property.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.Even otherwise, my attention is drawn to a series of the judgment of
this Court. In Lakshmi Ammal Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-
Registrar, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 and another reported in 2015
SCC OnLine Mad 5868, a learned Single Judge in paragraph 9, held as
follows:-
“9. Now, the question that arises for consideration
is, whether the first respondent can refuse to register the
document on the ground that the original parental deed
has not been produced before him. Section 71 of the
Registration Act, 1998 (herein after called as the Act),
contemplates that the Registrar can refuse to register the
document giving reasons for refusal. Nowhere in the
Registration Act, it contemplates that the Registrar can
insist for production of the original parental document.
When the Act does not contemplate so, the first respondent
cannot insist the petitioner to produce the same. However,
the first respondent seems to have relied on the circular of
the Inspector General of Registration dated 25.4.2012, in
http://www.judis.nic.in
and by which, the Inspector General of Registration has
given several instructions to the Sub Registrar and one of
the instruction is that he shall require the parties to
produce the original parental documents. The circular
can only be a guideline and it has no force in law. Unless
otherwise such requirement is made under the
Registration Act, the guideline alone, without any
provisions in the Act, has any role to play. In fact, the said
view was taken by this Court in the judgment reported
in 2011-2-L.W. 648 - K.S. Vijayendran v. The Inspector
General of Registration.
4.In that case, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition
in which a similar relief was sought and had struck down the impugned
order and issued a direction against the respondent therein to register the
document presented by the petitioner therein with respect to the property
which was the subject matter of the document presented for registration.
5.I follow the said judgment and issue a similar direction to the
http://www.judis.nic.in
respondent herein to register the document now presented for registration by
the petitioner herein. This would naturally mean that the order refusing
registration and directing production of parent title deed will have to be
necessarily interfered with and it is interfered with and is struck down. The
petitioner may present the document for registration and I am confident that
the respondent would do the needful in registering the document.
6.With the said observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
05.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
smv
To
The Sub Registrar,
No.1, Joint Sub Registration Office,
Namakkal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J
smv
W.P.No.14623 of 2021
05.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
