Madras High Court
A.Manimegalai vs The Sub Registrar on 25 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
A.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 25.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
A.Manimegalai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Kulithalai
Karur District.
2.T.Sankar
3.T.Thangavel
4.N.Gokula Kannan
5.Amudha Gokula Kannan
6.Minor. Poornima
7.Minor Dhashvika
8.Kannan
9.Vinatha ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
A.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar
(R8 and R9 have been impleaded
vide order of this Court dated 08.02.2021
in W.M.P.(MD) No.10585/2020)
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the
proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Check slip dated 06.05.2020 in
respect of TP/90065698/2020 and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Govindarajan
For Respondents :Mr.M.Lingadurai for R1
Government Advocate
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R4
Mr.V.Vishnu for R2 & R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal
check slip dated 06.05.2020 issued by the first respondent refusing to
register the document that was presented for registration on the ground that
the original mortgage documents have not been presented at the time of
registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
A.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar
2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property belongs to the
4th respondent. The 4th respondent had mortgaged the property to the second
and third respondents and the mortgage deed was also registered on
04.11.2019 and 28.11.2019. The further case of the petitioner is that the 4th
respondent decided to sell the property in favour of the petitioner and
accordingly, the sale deed was prepared on 06.05.2020. When the same was
presented for registration before the first respondent, it was refused to be
registered on the ground that the original documents have not been
presented. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed
before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
had totally paid a sum of Rs.16 lakhs to the 4th respondent. It was further
stated that this amount was paid by the petitioner for the purpose of clearing
the mortgage dues and also to meet some emergency expenses. That apart,
the 4th respondent had also stated that the share belonging to the minors will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
A.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar
also be deposited in the name of the minors in the post office deposit. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent went
wrong in refusing to register the sale on the ground that the original
mortgage deeds were not enclosed. It was further submitted that this Court
had repeatedly held that the first respondent does not have the power or
jurisdiction to insist for the production of original documents. The learned
counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a subsequent
development that had taken place in this case, wherein, the 4th respondent
has proceeded to sell the subject property to some other person. It was
therefore, submitted that the petitioner wants to proceed against the 4th
respondent by way of filing a suit for specific performance before the
competent Court and work out her remedy in accordance with law.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, by placing
reliance upon the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent submitted
that the fourth respondent had received only a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the
petitioner and the 4th respondent believed that the document in question is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
A.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar
only a loan document and the fourth respondent never intended to sell the
property to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the 4 th
respondent is willing to refund the entire amount received from the
petitioner along with interest and the 4th respondent does not want to deprive
the petitioner what is due and payable to him.
5. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not willing to get the refund from
the 4th respondent and the petitioner wants to proceed further against the
fourth respondent by filing a suit for specific performance.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned refusal check
slip issued by the first respondent is unsustainable in law, since the first
respondent is not vested with the power or jurisdiction under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
A.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar
Registration Act to insist for the production of the original documents. This
position of law has been made clear in the recent judgment of this Court in
Sivanadiyan v. Sub Registrar, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District reported in
2021 (2) CTC 526. Therefore, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the
first respondent is liable to be interfered with by this Court and the same is
accordingly quashed.
8. Since the petitioner is not willing to accept the offer made by the
fourth respondent, it is left open to the petitioner to work out her remedy
before the competent civil Court and proceed further in accordance with law.
9. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
25.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
A.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar
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
1.The Sub Registrar,
Kulithalai, Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
A.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P.(MD)No.7420 of 2020
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
