Madras High Court
K.Ramasamy vs The District Registrar on 10 October, 2022
W.P.No.26697 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.26697 of 2022
K.Ramasamy ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Registrar,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Sulur,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing to call for the records of
order dated 07.09.2022 bearing refusal number:RFL/Sulur/17/2022 on the
file of second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the
second respondent to register and release the settlement time as fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy
For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu
Additional Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26697 of 2022
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 07.09.2022 bearing
refusal number:RFL/Sulur/17/2022 on the file of second respondent and and
consequently direct the second respondent to register and release the
settlement time as fixed by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the properties in
S.No.466/3 sub-divided as S.No.466/3F of an extent of 2.47 acres situated
in Appanaickenpatti Village, Sulur, Coimbatore District vide registered sale
deed dated 30.09.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner settled the subject property
in favour of his son namely Paramasivam vide Settlement Deed dated
07.09.2022. When the petitioner presented the said document before the
second respondent, the same was refused to be registered vide impugned
refusal check slip dated 07.09.2022 citing the fact that the petitioner has not
produced the original Sale Deed. Challenging the same, the present Writ
Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26697 of 2022
3. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that though the petitioner annexed the certified copy
of the parent document, even then the second 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26697 of 2022
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
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."
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that the document presented by the petitioner was
rejected by the second respondent on the ground that parent document was
not annexed along with the document.
5. 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 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.26697 of 2022
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order
dated 07.09.2022 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to
entertain the documents 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.
10.10.2022
RAP
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
To:
1. The District Registrar,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Sulur,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26697 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
RAP
W.P.No.26697 of 2022
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
