Madras High Court
Mahmoodhul Hasan vs The District Registrar on 25 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.15040 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P(MD)No.15040 of 2021
Mahmoodhul Hasan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Registrar,
O/o. The District Registrar,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Sub Registrar (Joint No.1),
O/o.The Sub Registrar (Joint No.1),
Ramanathapuam,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
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 pertaining to the impugned Refusal Check Slip Refusal No.RFL/1
vz; ,iz rhh;gjpthsh; uhkehjg[uk;/8/2021 dated 04.08.2021 issued by the 2nd
Respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
2nd respondent to register the General Power of Attorney Deed executed by the
Petitioner in favour of Selvamuniyasamy S/o. Serman, in accordance with law
within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P(MD)No.15040 of 2021
For Petitioner : M/s. D. Balamurugapandi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Counsel for State
ORDER
The petitioner assails a refusal check slip dated 04.08.2021 of the
second respondent herein.
2. The petitioner states that his wife purchased the property bearing
Survey No.279/1A, now Town Survey No.16/1, Ward-A, Block-1 of an extent
of 85 cents by sale deed dated 28.08.1996, which was registered as Document
No.722/1986. It is stated that the said original parent document was misplaced.
Indeed, the petitioner contends that his wife had filed O.S.No.82 of 1999 before
the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram and even in such suit, a certified copy of the
parent sale deed was marked as an Exhibit in view of the original having been
misplaced.
3. In view of the attempts to encroach upon the petitioner's property and
the inability of the petitioner to handle such affairs, it is stated that the
petitioner executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Mr.C.Selva
muniasamy. Upon presentation of such document before the second respondent
for registration on 04.08.2021, the second respondent refused to register the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
document on the sole ground that the original parent document was not
W.P(MD)No.15040 of 2021
produced by the petitioner. The present writ petition is filed to challenge the
said order.
4. Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf
of both the respondents. He submits that the party presenting the document for
registration is required to submit revenue records such as the patta and other
corroborating evidence in case the original parent document is unavailable. He
cites a circular to such effect.
5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he has
submitted a copy of the patta and other available documents in terms of such
circular.
6. This court has held consistently in at least four judgments that the
registration authority cannot refuse to register a document on the sole ground
that the original parent document has not been produced. The rationale for
calling upon a party to produce the original parent document is to ensure that
the relevant property is not subject to a mortgage or other encumbrance by
depositing the original title deeds in such connection. Therefore, an explanation
may be called for and any other documents in terms of the relevant circular may
be requested for. In the case at hand, the petitioner has contended that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
produced the patta and other corroborating documents. In these circumstances,
W.P(MD)No.15040 of 2021
the respondent was clearly not justified in refusing to register the document
solely on the ground that the original parent deed is unavailable.
7. Accordingly, W.P.(MD).No.15040 of 2021 is allowed by quashing the
impugned refusal check slip dated 04.08.2021. As a consequence, the matter is
remitted to the second respondent. The petitioner is permitted to resubmit the
relevant document for registration along with all supporting documents. Upon
receipt thereof, the second respondent is directed to consider the request for
registration by taking into account the observations in this order and complete
the entire exercise within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of
the resubmitted document along with the supporting documents. There will be
no order as to costs.
25.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
pkn/nsr
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.15040 of 2021
To
1. The District Registrar,
O/o. The District Registrar,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Sub Registrar (Joint No.1),
O/o.The Sub Registrar (Joint No.1),
Ramanathapuam,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.15040 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN/NSR
W.P(MD)No.15040of 2021
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
