Madras High Court
A.Thulasi @ Thulasimani vs The Sub Registrar on 28 November, 2022
W.P.No.31725 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.11.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.31725 of 2022
A.Thulasi @ Thulasimani ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Villivakkam Registrar Office,
Chennai 600 101. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number:
RFL/Villivakkam/46/2022 dated 21.11.2022 and to quash the same as illegal
and incompetent and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale
deed dated 21.11.2022 executed by the petitioner in favour of one
B.Ranjitha, wife of K.Balamurugan, without insisting on production of the
original parent document in respect of the subject property.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondent : Mr.C.Kathiravan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Refusal
Check Slip in Refusal Number: RFL/Villivakkam/46/2022 dated 21.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31725 of 2022
and to quash the same as illegal and incompetent and consequently direct the
respondent to register the sale deed dated 21.11.2022 executed by the
petitioner in favour of one B.Ranjitha, wife of K.Balamurugan, without
insisting on production of the original parent document in respect of the
subject property.
2. Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned Special Government Pleader takes
notice for the respondent. 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 petitioner had executed a
Sale Deed, dated 21.11.2022 in favour of one B.Ranjitha, and the same was
presented before the respondent for registration. However, the said document
was refused to be registered by the respondent on the ground that original
parent document was not annexed along with the document which is
presented for registration. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition
has been filed by the petitioner for the above relief.
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31725 of 2022
for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner annexed the certified
copy of the parent document, even then the respondent refused to register the
document is not sustainable, the issue involved in the present case, is no
more res-integra. He 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:-
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
W.P.No.31725 of 2022
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 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
respondent submitted that the document presented by the petitioner was
rejected by the respondent on the ground that parent document was not
annexed along with the document.
6. In view of the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of
2020, order dated 11.02.2021, makes it clear that, there is no need to present
the original parent document, certified copy of the parent document is
sufficient to entertain the document for registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31725 of 2022
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is
set aside and the 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.
28.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/ No
jd
Note: Registry is directed to issue the original impugned order to the
petitioner under due acknowledgment to enable her to work out the remedy.
To
The Sub Registrar,
Villivakkam Registrar Office,
Chennai 600 101.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31725 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
jd
W.P.No.31725 of 2022
28.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
