Madras High Court
Mrs. Rasamani vs The Sub-Registrar on 1 September, 2021
1 W.P.No.18028 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P. No. 18028 of 2021
Mrs. Rasamani
... Petitioner
-Vs-
The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Main Road,
Vikramangalam 621 701
Ariyalur District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records relating to the impugned refusal slip in
RFL/Vikramangalam/35/2021 dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Sub-
Registrar, Vikramangalam and quash the same as illegal and consequently
direct the Respondent to register the settlement document presented by the
Petitioner for registration without insisting for the original parental
document in the light of the order made in the case of K.S. Vijayendran vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 W.P.No.18028 of 2021
Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, - 2011 (2) LW 648, within the
time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and pass orders accordingly.
For Petitioner :: M/s.Usha Ramman
For Respondent :: Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan
(Government Advocate)
*****
ORDER
This |Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records relating to the impugned refusal slip in
RFL/Vikramangalam/35/2021 dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Sub-
Registrar, Vikramangalam and quash the same as illegal and consequently
direct the Respondent to register the settlement document presented by the
Petitioner for registration without insisting for the original parental
document in the light of the order made in the case of K.S. Vijayendran vs.
Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, - 2011 (2) LW 648, within the
time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and pass orders accordingly.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the
property in the year 1989 vide registered sale deed No. 516/1989 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
12.06.1989 wherein the petitioner's son also was shown as joint purchaser.
The said sale deed was registered in the name of the petitioner and his son
namely Mr. Veeramuthu. Subsequently, the petitioner's son died in the year
1994. The original sale deed is with the petitioner's daughter-in-law namely
Mrs.Gangaiammal. The joint patta is registered in the name of the petitioner
and her daughter-in-law vide patta No.42 for measuring an extent of 0-70-5
Ares, situated in Govindaputhur village, Vikramangalam, Udayarpalayam
Taluk. The petitioner is bestowed with two children out of wedlock. The
petitioner intended to execute the settlement deed in favour of her
daughter's son Mr.Kolanji, for her share. Hence, the petitioner has presented
the settlement deed with respondent on 12-08-2021, by enclosing the copy
of the sale deed No. 516/1989 dated 12.06.1989 and joint patta which are
registered in the name of the petitioner. The respondent refused to register
the settlement deed and insisted the petitioner to produce original parental
sale deed No.516/1989 dated 12.06.1989. It has been disclosed the fact by
the petitioner herein that the registered parent deed is with her daughter-in-
law and she refused to furnish the original deed since she did not want to
execute settlement deed in favour of his daughter son. Without perusing the
documents, the respondent insisted for production of the original parental
document No.516/1989 dated 12.06.1989. Under such circumstances, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
petitioner intends to execute her share measuring an extent of 0.35.25 Ares
(0-70.50 Ares) by way of settlement deed to her grandson Kolanji, whereas
due to family quarrel the original parental document is withheld by the
petitioner's daughter-in-law(Gangai Ammal) who is refusing to part with the
same. Even though the petitioner paid necessary charges to the respondent
and presented the settlement deed on 12.08.2021, for registration, the
respondent refused to register the document and stated as parent original
document was not produced for verification. Further, the respondent issued
impugned order in REFUSAL RFL/VIKRAMANGALAM/35/2021 dated
12-08-2021 and refused to register the document as the petitioner has not
produced the original parental document for verification. As against the
impugned refusal Slip dated 12.08.2021, the Petitioner herein prefers the
present writ petition by invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent ought to note that the registered sale deed document No.
516/1989 is very much available on the records of the respondent, it clearly
discloses that the petitioner is one of the purchaser along with his son and
there is no encumbrance in that property from the date of purchase till this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
date. Further, the refusal of the respondent is only on the basis of the fact
that parental document has not been produced for perusal of the authorities.
4. It has been further submitted that due to family issues the
daughter-in-law withheld the original document and the petitioner has a
right to settle in favour of her grandson. Hence the refusal, without any
reason, ought not to be entertained and the same deserves to be quashed in
the light of the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in "K.S. Vijayendran Vs.
Inspector General of Registration", Chennai,- reported in 2011 (2) LW 648.
As the petitioner intends to settle her property in favour of her grandson for
his livelihood and it is the only property which is in enjoyment of the
Petitioner for 32 years and the Patta is standing in the name of the petitioner
on the date of presentation of the document to the respondent. Despite
proving her bona-fides, the respondent ought not to have rejected the
document when, as of now, there is no hassle.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
this Court may be pleased to look into the decision rendered in 2011 -" K.S.
Vijayendran vs. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai", wherein it
was decided that there is no authority to insist upon the original document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
and circulars and guidelines in this regard have been thrashed at the hands
of this Hon'ble Court in respect of various decisions- in "2015 SCC Online
5868", There is no statutory force for the authorities to insist upon the
original documents and the courts have strongly held by way of various
decisions that such insistence is nowhere in the provisions of the
Registration Act. In W.P. No. 19745 of 2020, it has been categorically held
that insistence of production of original documents by the Registering
authorities is without any authority in law. The circular issued by the
Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in this regard cannot have any
sanctity, unless the power of issuance of such circular is authorized under
the provisions of the Act and no such power can be read into the Act, in the
absence of any specific provisions.
6. It has been further submitted that this Court may be pleased to
note that under Section 71 of the Registration Act contemplates the
Registrar can refuse to register a document giving reasons, but nowhere it is
contemplated that the Registry should insist for production of the original
document when the Act does not contemplate so.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent failed to note that the parent document was registered in the
name of petitioner and her son. The joint patta No.42 has been issued in
favour of petitioner and her daughter-in-law for Survey No.100/2B
measuring an extent 0-70.50 Ares. The petitioner is intending to execute her
share 0-35-25 Ares in favour of her Grandson. The copy of the registered
sale deed No. 516/1989 dated 12.06.1989 and joint patta registered in the
name of petitioner also produced before the respondent for verification.
The petitioner purchased the property and she has every right to execute
settlement deed in favour of her Grandson, the respondent without verifying
the copy of the sale deed and patta registered in the name of petitioner, the
respondent passed an impugned refusal order in
RFL/Vikramangalam/35/2021 dated 12.08.2021, is illegal. 5. 1 state that I
have not filed any suit or petition or writ petition for the same cause of
action. Hence, the petitioner is left with no other option except to approach
this Court seeking for to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records relating to the impugned refusal slip in
RFL/Vikramangalam/35/2021 dated 12.08.2021 issued by the respondent-
Sub-Registrar, Vikramangalam and quash the same and consequently direct
the Respondent to register the settlement document presented by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Petitioner for registration without insisting for the original parental
document and pass orders accordingly.
8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent
would submit that the refusal of the registration is on the ground of the
Circular issued by the Office of the Inspector General of Registration.
However, there is no provision of Law to produce the Original Documents
before the Registering Authority while the petitioner has proved her
possession and enjoyment of the said property by way of the Certified copy
of the Parent documents and other related documents. Hence, the petitioner
may be directed to produce the certified copies of the Original Documents
and other related documents before the respondent to ensure her possession
and enjoyment of the property by which the respondent may be directed to
register the same in accordance with law.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate for the respondent as well as perused the material
available on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side as well as perused
the observations made by this Court in the similar case, this Court is of the
view that insistence of production of original documents by the Registering
authorities is without any authority in law. The circular issued by the
Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in this regard cannot have any
sanctity, unless the power of issuance of such circular is authorized under
the provisions of the Act and no such power can be read into the Act. In the
absence of any specific provisions, the respondent cannot refuse to register
the document while the petitioner has proved her possession and enjoyment
of the property along with related documents. It is admitted fact that the
original documents are required to produce before the Registering authority
to ensure the claim of the parties concerned, in the said property to avoid
multiplicity proceedings with regard to registering the documents to wrong
parties.
11. Hence, the petitioner shall produce the certified copy of the
Parent Documents and other related documents from the authority
concerned along with Aadhar Card to ensure the petitioner who is in the
possession and enjoyment of the said property. After receipt of the same, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
Lbm
respondent shall register the Settlement Deed executed by the petitioner as
per procedure contemplates in the Law.
11. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed if any. There shall be no order
as to costs.
01.09.2021
Lbm
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To:
The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Main Road,
Vikramangalam 621 701
Ariyalur District.
W.P. No. 18028 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
