Madras High Court
P.Thangarathinam vs The Inspector General Of ... on 12 October, 2022
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.26413 of 2022
P.Thangarathinam .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Inspector General of Registration
No.100,Santhome High Road
Foreshore Estate
Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 28
2.The Sub-Registrar
Paramathi
Namakkal District ..
Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the impugned “Refusal Check
Slip” issued by the second respondent vide Refusal
No.RFL/Paramathi/69/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and quash the same and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to register the settlement deed
presented by the petitioner dated 18.08.2022 without insisting for the
production of the original parent document.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathy
For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishnaraja
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned Refusal
Check Slip in No.RFL/Paramathi/69/2022 dated 18.08.2022 passed by the
second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the second
respondent to register the settlement deed without insisting for the production
of the original parent document.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband namely K.Pannerselvam
died on 20.04.2015 leaving behind the estates to his legal heir, namely the
petitioner, his son namely P.Vinoth Kumar (died) and her daughter
Dr.Sankari. Further, the petitioner intended to release her ¼ shares of her son's
property and 1/8 shares of her husband property by executing the settlement
deed in favour of her daughter namely Dr.Sankari. When the same was
presented for registration, the second respondent had refused to entertain on
the ground that original parent documents were not presented while
registration by passing the impugned order. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
refusal check slip is non est in law and the second respondent is bound to
register the said deed, considering that it does not come within the list of
documents which can be refused to be regitered, as listed under Section 22A of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
the Registration Act.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits that the document presented by the petitioner was rejected
by the respondent on the ground that original parent document was not
annexed along with the document.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The
facts of the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner is in
possession of the disputed properties. The presented settlement deed before the
second respondent was returned on the ground that there is no parent
document attached while registring the settlement deed. The issue involved in
the present case, is no more res-integra. 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:-
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
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 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."
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
parent document, certified copy of the parent document is sufficient to
entertain the document for registration.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set
aside and the respondent is directed to entertain the document presented by the
petitioner along with a certified copy of the parent document and pass
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
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.
12.10.2022
dhk
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration
No.100,Santhome High Road
Foreshore Estate
Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 28
2.The Sub-Registrar
Paramathi
Namakkal District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
dhk
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27212 of 2022
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
