Madras High Court
M.Rekha vs The Joint Sub-Registrar on 23 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.13595 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.13595 of 2021
M.Rekha ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Joint Sub-Registrar,
Office of Joint Sub-Registrar No.1,
Trichy. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, thereby, call for
the records of the respondent in Refusal Check Slip in RFL/1 Num. Join Sub-
Registrar Trichy/137/2021 dated 26.07.2021 and quash the same as illegal and
arbitrary in the light of the orders passed by this Hon'ble in W.P(MD) No.19745
of 2020 dated 11.02.2021 and in consequence thereof direct the respondent to
receive and register the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of
Mohanarengan dated 26.07.2021, without insisting for production of original
parental deed.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.R.Baskaran
Counsel for State
ORDER
The petitioner challenges a Refusal Check Slip, dated 26.07.2021 by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
which the respondent refused to register the sale deed presented by the
W.P(MD)No.13595 of 2021
petitioner for registration.
2.The petitioner states that the property comprised in Plot No.22 of
J.K.Nagar, bearing S.F.No.18/13 of Piratiyur Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy
District, originally belonged to one Venkatesan. The petitioner's mother, Jothi,
purchased the same from the said Venkatesan under registered sale deed, dated
05.02.2003. According to the petitioner, her mother Jothi died intestate on
17.02.2010 and her father Mahendran also died intestate on 12.03.2016.
Consequently, their three daughters, including the petitioner herein, inherited
the mother's estate. The petitioner states that each of the sisters decided to
apportion the property between themselves. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
decided to sell her 1/3rd portion. For such purpose, a sale deed was executed
and presented for registration. However, by the impugned check slip, the
respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the original parent
document had not been produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers
to and relies upon the earlier order of this Court in Sivanadiyan Vs. Sub-
Registrar, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District, reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526. On
such basis, he contends that the impugned order is not sustainable.
3.Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the State, submits that the
Registration Department calls for an explanation with regard to the original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
parent documents so as to ensure that the relevant property has not been
W.P(MD)No.13595 of 2021
mortgaged or subject to any other encumbrance. In addition, he submits that
the relevant revenue documents, such as patta, may be submitted in such
circumstances along with an explanation for the non availability of the original
parent document.
4.In view of the consistent decision taken in earlier judgments of this
Court to the effect that a registration cannot be refused for non production of
the original parent document, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Such
impugned order cites only such non production of the original document as the
reason for refusal. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 is
quashed. At the same time, it must be noted that the original parent document
is called for so as to ascertain whether the property is subject to a mortgage or
other encumbrance. A party submitting a document for registration should,
therefore, provide an explanation for non production of the original parent
document and also submit corroborating documents in such regard.
5.Accordingly, W.P.(MD).No.13595 of 2021 is allowed. The petitioner is
permitted to re-present the relevant document for registration. Such re-
presentation shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of the
receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed
to consider the request for registration by taking into account the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526 as also the observations set out above. The
W.P(MD)No.13595 of 2021
petitioner is also permitted to submit an explanation with regard to the non
production of the original document as also any other document to corroborate
her interest in the property. There is 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.
To
The Joint Sub-Registrar,
Office of Joint Sub-Registrar No.1,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13595 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
TM
W.P(MD)No.13595 of 2021
23.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
