Madras High Court
Pramila vs The Inspector General Of ... on 6 September, 2021
1 W.P.No.18546 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P. No.18546 of 2021
Pramila ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhame High Road,
Chennai-600028.
2. The District Registrar (Admin) (AIG)
Vellore-632001.
3. The Joint Sub-Registrar-I,
Vellore-632001 ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for
the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Registration Refusal
No. 01/APP/2021 dated 27-04-2021 passed by the 3rd Respondent and to
quash the same and consequently to direct the 3 Respondent to register the
document bearing Pending Document No. 74/APP/2021 dated 20-04-2021
within a reasonable time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and
pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
necessary under the circumstance of the case and thus render justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 W.P.No.18546 of 2021
For Petitioner :: Mr. A.E. Ravichandran
For Respondents :: Mr. Yoghesh Kannnadasan
*****
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issuance of
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed in Registration Refusal No. 01/APP/2021 dated 27-
04-2021 passed by the 3'd Respondent and to quash the same and
consequently to direct the 3 Respondent to register the document bearing
Pending Document No. 74/APP/2021 dated 20-04-2021 within a reasonable
time as stipulated by this Court and pass orders accordingly.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's mother namely
Late K. Rukmini and father Late. N. Krishnan had 3 daughters including the
petitioner herein and a son. The petitioner's mother had predeceased her
father on 12-01-2011, and her father has passed away on 07 10-2020. It is
pertinent to note that both had died intestate and that all the 4 children are
entitled to 1/4th share equally in the properties left behind by them. The
petitioner's mother had self-acquired certain properties during her lifetime
out of her own income and the same came to be registered and the details of
the same are set hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.No. Document No. Name of SRO Present Value
1 2794/1993 Sub-Registrar, Vellore. 30,00,000/
2 640/2000 Sub-Registrar, Vellore 26,11,000/
3 5451/2002 Sub-Registrar, Vellore 24,16,000/-
Further, the petitioner's father during his lifetime had also purchased many
properties and the same were registered and the details of the same are set
hereunder:
S.No. Document No. Name of SRO Present Value
1 1800/1981 & 3434/1983 Sub-Registrar, Vellore. 32,00,000/
2 982/1983 Sub-Registrar, Vellore 13,00,000/
3 2295/1998 Sub-Registrar, Vellore 32,00,000/
4 274/1986 & 2024/2000 Sub-Registrar, Vellore 12,91,000/
5 5337/2002 Sub-Registrar, Vellore 24,16,000/
6 2033/2008 Sub-Registrar, Vellore 55,00,000/
7 4566/2008 Sub-Registrar, Vellore 30,00,000/
the value of the properties purchased and owned by the petitioner's parents
are Rs. 2,79,34,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Nine Lakhs Thirty Four
Thousand only). As a legal heir, the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share in
the above-mentioned properties totaling a value of Rs. 69,83,500/- (Sixty
nine lakhs eighty three thousand and five hundred only). All the original
documents of the above-mentioned properties are with the petitioner's
brother N.K Jayaprakash, with whom she has a strained relationship.
Hence, apprehending the possibility of her share in the property being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
misused, the petitioner had decided to execute a settlement deed in favour
of her husband A.K Ravi, bequeathing her 1/4th share in the property in his
favour. One of her sisters, Anagha Sree had settled her 1/4th share with
respect to certain properties in favor of her brother N.K Jayaprakash and the
same was registered as Document No. 670/2021 dated 22-01-2021, on the
file of the 3rd Respondent herein. Further it came to understand that the
petitioner's other sister Sarala, has also settled her 1/4th share in respect of
certain properties in favor of her brother N.K Jayaprakash. Under such
circumstances, the petitioner had presented the settlement deed for
registration with the 3rd Respondent on 12-04-2021. The 3rd Respondent
had kept her document as Pending enquiry and had issued a check-slip
dated 12-04-2021, stating that the original parent documents were required
to be produced for verification and for registering the settlement deed. In
this regard, the petitioner showed the Judgments passed by this Hon'ble
Court to the 3rd Respondent on 16-04-2021 highlighting the fact that the
original parent documents can not be insisted upon for the registration of the
settlement deed. In the interregnum, on 16-04-2021, the petitioner had
made a representation to the 1st Respondent seeking for to direct the 3rd
Respondent to register the settlement deed without insisting on the
production of the original parent documents. On 03-05-2021, the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Respondent had written to the 2nd Respondent in letter No.15549/C1/2021
marking a copy to the Petitioner, not to insist on the production of the
original parent documents and further directed the registration of document,
if otherwise it was in order. In the meanwhile, the 3rd Respondent had
issued the impugned order dated 27-04-2021 in Document Refusal No
01/APP/2021 rejecting and returning the petitioner's document for
registration on the ground that the original parent documents have not been
produced. The order was provided for an appeal remedy with the 2nd
Respondent. Challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by
the 3rd Respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal with the 2nd
Respondent on 17-05 2021. Till date the 2nd Respondent has not passed any
orders on the same, despite making several representations and considering
the directions issued by the 1st Respondents dated 03-05-2021. Since the
2nd Respondent had not passed any orders, the petitioner was constrained to
prefer a representation with the 1st Respondent on 30-06-2021. Based on
his representation no action or orders have been passed till date and the
Respondents have flagrantly violated the Judgments passed by this Hon'ble
Court and the duty enjoined upon them to act in a non-arbitrary manner.
Though the impugned order provides for an appeal, and the same having
been resorted by the petitioner herein, and since no orders have been passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, having no other efficacious or alternative
remedy, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court to
exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, challenging the impugned order made in Registration Refusal No.
01/APP/2021 dated 27-04 2021, passed by the 3rd Respondent rejecting and
returning Pending Document No. 74/APP/2021 presented by her for
registration on 12.04.2021.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
impugned order dated 27-04-2021, passed by the 3rd Respondent is
arbitrary and against the settle principles of law. The impugned order passed
by the 3rd Respondent is against the directions passed by the 1st
Respondent in letter no. 15549/C1/2021 dated 03-05-2021.
4. It has been further submitted that the 3rd Respondent has over-
looked the decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in "2021 (2) CTC 5262
and 2011 (2) LW 648". This Hon'ble Court in a catena of judgments has
held that the registration of a document cannot be refused on the ground that
the original parent documents have not been produced. The 3d Respondent
has erred in relying upon Circular No.25600/C1/2018 dated 07-06-2018 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
13-06-2018 as the 1st respondent had already issued circulars not to insist
upon the production of the parent documents when the original documents
are in the possession of one co-owner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
the 2nd Respondent has failed its statutory duty in not directing the 3rd
Respondent to register the settlement deed in light of the communication
sent by the 1st Respondent dated 03-05-2021. The 2nd Respondent has also
not passed any orders based on the appeal preferred against the impugned
order. Hence, this Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order dated 27.04.2021 in Registration Refusal
No.01/APP/2021 dated 27.04.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent and to
quash the same and pass orders accordingly.
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents would submit that as the petitioner is having equal share in the
said property among other legal heirs, the petitioner can execute her share
ie. 1/4th share to her husband favour. Further, the 1st respondent has already
directed the 3rd respondent to register the settlement deed without insisting
the original documents since the 1/4 share of the property belonged to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
petitioner herein. Hence, the respondents may be directed to register the
settlement deed executed by the petitioner herein in her husband favour.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate for the respondent as well as perused the material
available on records.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the
view that the original documents are in the custody of the petitioner's
brother and further 3 shares have been settled in favour of the petitioner's
brother. Under such circumstances, the 1st respondent has also
communicated to the 3rd respondent not to insist on the production of the
original parent documents. Thereafter, neither the 2nd respondent nor 1st
respondent has passed any orders on the appeal against the impugned order
passed by the 3rd respondent and representations filed by the petitioner
herein. It is admitted fact that the original documents have been required to
ensure the parties who are title over the property and to avoid multiplicity
proceedings with regard to registration of documents. Further, producing of
the original documents on registration of the documents is not contemplated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
in the prescribed Law. While being so, the petitioner shall produce the
certified copy of the parent documents and other related documents required
for the registration of Settlement Deed before the Registering Authority.
After receipt of the certified copies of the original parent documents, the 3rd
respondent shall register the settlement deed executed by the petitioner
herein in her husband favour in accordance with law within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if any. There
shall be no order as to costs.
06.09.2021
Lbm
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To:
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhame High Road, Chennai-600028.
2. The District Registrar (Admin) (AIG)
Vellore-632001.
3. The Joint Sub-Registrar-I,
Vellore-632001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
Lbm
W.P. No.18546 of 2021
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
