Madras High Court
Mr.A.Krishnan vs The Inspector General Of ... on 25 April, 2022
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.9758 of 2022
Mr.A.Krishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600 026. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned Refusal Check Slip Refusal No.RFL/Kodambakkam/31/2022
dated 31.03.2022 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the second respondent to register the Partition Deed
presented by the petitioner for registration without insisting upon the
production of patta or any other revenue records in the name of the
petitioner.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
For Petitioner : M/S.G.Ilangovan
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned
Refusal Check Slip in Refusal No.RFL/Kodambakkam/31/2022 dated
31.03.2022 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the second respondent to register the partition deed
presented by the petitioner for registration without insisting upon the
production of patta or any other revenue records in the name of the
petitioner.
2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader
takes notice for the respondents. In view of the limited relief sought for in
this petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing
on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing Plot No.12 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
layout No.41 of 1956, situated at No.33/17, Chakrapani Street, West
Mambalam, Chennai 600 033, comprised in Town Survey No.60 of Block
No.49, Puliyur Village, Egmore Taluk, Chennai District, measuring an
extent of 2380 Square feet, within the Sub Registration District of
Kodambakkam and Registration District of Chennai Central, originally
owned by Sri Ramakrishna Mission, which sold the above said property
through their Power Agent Sri.S.Krishna Iyer to and in favour of one
Sri.T.S.Rajagopalan, in and, by way of a registered Sale Deed vide
Document No.500/1962. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother Mrs.S.Vasantha
had purchased the aforesaid property from said Sri.T.S.Rajagopalan under
two Sale deeds vide documents Nos.1080 of 1982 dated 31.03.1982 and
2488 of 1982 dated 17.07.1982 respectively, on the file of the Sub Registrar
Office, Kodambakkam. After the demise of the petitioner's mother, the
petitioner had obtained Legal Heir Certificate from the Competent Authority
on 29.09.2014. Further, the petitioner and his sister had decided and
executed a partition deed for the aforesaid property and the same has been
presented before the second respondent for registration. However, the said
partition deed was refused to be registered on the ground that the Patta was
not produced in the name of the petitioner, there is a difference in owner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
name mentioned in Patta and the document presented by the petitioner.
Therefore, on the said reasons, the second respondent has returned the
partition deed along with the impugned Refusal Check Slip. Challenging the
same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the
petitioner's mother had purchased the aforesaid property through two sale
deeds from Sri.T.S.Rajagopalan, as stated supra. However, without verifying
the sale deeds produced by the petitioner, the second respondent had simply
rejected and given Refusal Slip on the ground that the Patta was not
produced, which is not sustainable one. Further, he submitted that the
partition deed possessed by the petitioner is based on the title and not based
on the Patta obtained by his mother. Hence, the impugned Rejection Slip is
not sustainable one. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this Writ Petition.
4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the
decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated
11.02.2021. The relevant portion of the above said order is extracted
hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
"8.This Court is entirely in agreement with the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in this regard.
The latest decision of the learned Single Judge appears to
have not considered the implication of the Circular with
reference to the scheme of the relevant Act. On the other
hand, the above three decisions cited on behalf of the
petitioner would certainly hold the field and in which event,
insistence on production of original Title Deeds by the
Registering Authority is without any authority of 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. This Court has consistently held that
no such power can be read into Act, in the absence of any
specific provisions and in that view of the matter, as rightly
contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
subject issue is no more res-integra. As far as the latest
decision of the learned Single Judge is concerned, being a
kind of a contra view, this Court is of the opinion that the
order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.16768 of 2020, dated 26.11.2020 has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
appreciated the provisions of the Act, as the reasons of the
learned Single Judge are contrary to the well considered
earlier Judgments of this Court. The learned Judge has
reasoned without any specific reference to the scheme of
the Act, which governs the registration."
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that, the petitioner has not produced the original
document, which was purchased in the year 1982. However, the petitioner
has produced the copy of the parent document, further on perusal of the
revenue records, it reveals that the owner of the property is Sri Ramakrishna
Mission. Hence, the document presented by the petitioner was rejected in
terms of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act. Accordingly, he prays for
dismissal of this Writ Petition.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the view that the issue arises in the present case is covered by the decision
of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated 11.02.2021.
Admittedly, the petitioner claims that his mother had purchased the property
from Sri.T.S.Rajagopalan through two registered sale deeds vide Document
Nos.1080 of 1982 dated 31.03.1982 and 2488 of 1982 dated 17.07.1982
respectively. The petitioner has not produced the parent document, however,
he has produced the copy of the parent document. Therefore, the certified
copy of the parent document is sufficient to entertain the document for
registration. Mere non-production of Patta will not deprive the rights to the
petitioner for registration of partition deed. In the present case, the
petitioner has produced the copy of the parent document and Non Traceable
Certificate. However, the second respondent refused to register the partition
deed, on the ground that the revenue records were not mutated, which is not
sustainable one. Hence, the second respondent is directed to entertain the
document presented by the petitioner and upon perusing the copy of the
parent document and Non Traceable Certificate produced by the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
set aside and the second respondent is directed to entertain the document
presented by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the
petitioner is directed to pay requisite Stamp Duty and Registration Charges.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
jd/rap
Note to Registry: Issue Order Copy on 27.04.2022.
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600 026.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
jd/rap
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
W.P.No.10055 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.9758 of 2022
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
