Madras High Court
Ms. vs The Sub-Registrar on 23 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.14883 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P(MD)No.14883 of 2021
Ms.,Millenium Granites,
through its Partner,
P.Sudhir Sharma,
No.7B, Ramakrishnapuram,
Karur Town, Karur Taluk,
Karur District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Melakarur,
Karur District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned Refusal Slip in RFL/Melakarur/27/2021 dated
11.08.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondent to register the lease deed dated 02.08.2021 presented by the
petitioner firm for registration without insisting for the production of original
parent document.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Counsel for State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P(MD)No.14883 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner challenges a Refusal Check Slip, dated 11.08.2021, of the
respondent. The petitioner states that the property bearing old survey No.650,
new Survey No.650/2 and old survey No.649, New survey No.649/2, originally
belonged to one P.Vinoth Kumar. The said P.Vinoth Kumar purchased the
aforesaid property under registered sale deed dated 15.03.2000. Subsequent to
such purchase, it is stated that P.Vinoth Kumar executed a lease deed on
25.05.2000 in favour of the petitioner for a period of 30 years. Thereafter,
another lease deed dated 24.11.2006 was executed for a further period of 12
years from 2030 to 2042. Meanwhile, it is stated that Mr.P.Vinoth Kumar died
on 02.01.2016. He said to be survived by his wife, Mrs.V.Meena and his two
sons V.Suriya and V.Naren. His wife submitted a lease deed dated 02.08.2021
for a further extension of the lease period from 2042 to 2047 and the impugned
order was passed refusing the registration thereof.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the impugned order and
points out that the only reason cited therein for the refusal to register the
document is the non production of the original parent document. By relying
upon the Judgment of this Court in Sivanadiyan Vs. Sub-Registrar,
Pudukottai, Pudukottai District, reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526, it is contended
that the registration authorities do not have the power to refuse registration on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the ground of non production of the original parent document.
W.P(MD)No.14883 of 2021
3.Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State accepts notice on behalf of
the respondent. He submits that the circular issued by the Inspector General of
Registration requires that the relevant revenue records should be produced in
case the original parent document is not available. In addition, it is submitted
that a police complaint should be lodged in respect of the missing original
parent document.
4.Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the only reason
cited for refusal to register the document is the non production of the original
parent document. The judgment of this Court in the case reported in 2021 (2)
CTC 526 holds that the Registration Department does not have the authority to
refuse registration on the ground of non production of the original parent
document. This Judgment is on the basis of earlier Judgments to the same
effect. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the
impugned order is quashed.
5.Nonetheless, it should be borne in mind that the registration authorities
call for the original parent document so as to ensure that the relevant property
has not been mortgaged or subject to any other form of encumbrance, which
would impede the execution of deeds of conveyance in respect thereof.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Therefore, a party seeking to register a deed of conveyance without the original
W.P(MD)No.14883 of 2021
parent document may be called upon to provide an explanation and produce any
other corroborating document.
6. Subject to the aforesaid observations, W.P.(MD).No.14883 of 2021 is
allowed. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for
reconsideration of the application for registration of the lease deed. It is open
to the petitioner to resubmit the lease deed for registration. Such re-submission
shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
It is also open to the petitioner to provide an explanation and also submit any
further documents in relation to such application for registration. The
respondent shall pass a reasoned order on the said application by taking into
account the Judgment reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526 and also the observations
contained herein. Such reasoned order shall be passed within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of the lease deed along with an explanation and
additional documents if any. There will be no order as to costs.
23.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
TM
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.14883 of 2021
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Melakarur,
Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.14883 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
TM
W.P(MD)No.14883 of 2021
23.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
