Madras High Court
V.Marimuthu vs The Sub Registrar on 24 September, 2021
W.P(MD)No.17197 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P(MD)No.17197 of 2021
V.Marimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
impugned return slip issued by the respondent dated 08.09.2021 and quash the
same and consequently directing the respondent to register the document
presented by the petitioner for registration without insisting for the production
of original parent document.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Counsel for State.
ORDER
The petitioner challenges a return slip issued by the respondent on
08.09.2021 upon the presentation of a document for registration by the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17197 of 2021
2. The petitioner states he is the owner of the properties purchased
under sale deeds dated 20.05.2002, 07.09.2009 and 14.09.2011, respectively,
bearing Document Nos.704/2002, 5160/2009 and 6707/2011, respectively. On
account of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife, it is
alleged by the petitioner that his wife misappropriated the title documents
pertaining to the above mentioned properties. Therefore, the petitioner lodged
a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai on 09.01.2020. The
relevant complaint and the acknowledgment in relation thereto are cited. The
petitioner states that he decided to execute a settlement deed in favour of his
daughter, Jeyakumari. Upon submission of the relevant document to the
respondent herein, the petitioner was shocked to receive the return slip by
which the respondent refused to register the document on the ground of non-
production of the original parent documents. The petitioner states that the
impugned order is unsustainable in light of earlier judgments of this Court,
including the judgment reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526.
3. Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on
behalf of the sole respondent. He submits that the Inspector General of
Registration has issued circulars from time to time. In terms thereof, a party
who is unable to produce the original parent documents relating to a property
should produce the police complaint in respect thereof, the paper publications
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
effected in connection therewith and documents such as the patta in respect of
W.P(MD)No.17197 of 2021
the relevant property. If the petitioner submits these documents along with an
explanation for the failure to produce the original parent documents, he states
that the respondent would consider the same and dispose of the request for
registration in accordance with law.
4. Registration authorities call for the production of the original
parent documents so as to ascertain whether the executant of the document is
entitled to execute such document. Although registration authorities cannot
decide questions of title, they are required to prima facie examine whether the
executant of a document is entitled to execute such document. In addition, the
original parent documents are called for so as to ensure that the relevant
property is not the subject matter of a mortgage or other encumbrance.
However, it is possible that a party has legitimate reasons for failing to produce
the original parent documents. Therefore, a party who is unable to produce the
original document should provide an explanation in relation thereto and also
produce a copy of the police complaint, paper publication and revenue records
in relation to the relevant property so as to justify such non-production.
However, the registration authorities should not refuse to register a document
solely on account of non-production if the party concerned produces the
documents adverted to above and also provides an explanation in such regard.
To that extent, the impugned order is unsustainable and is quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17197 of 2021
5. For reasons set out above, the petitioner is permitted to
re-submit the relevant document for registration by enclosing the documents
referred to above. Such re-submission shall be done within a period of two (2)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the
respondent herein is directed to re-consider the matter by taking into account
the observations set out in this order. The respondent shall issue notice to the
petitioner's wife, Muthulakshmi, and consider her objections, if any. In any
event, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner as well as objectors, if any.
6. W.P.(MD).No.17197 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms
without any order as to costs.
24.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
tsg/LM
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.17197 of 2021
To
The Sub Registrar,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17197 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
tsg/LM
W.P(MD)No.17197 of 2021
24.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
