Madras High Court
Thulasimani vs The District Registrar on 9 September, 2022
W.P.No.24226 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No. 24226 of 2022
Thulasimani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
The District Registrar Office,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Sub - Registrar,
Palladam,
Tiruppur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
the Refusal Check Slip in Refusal No.RFL/Palladam/62/2022 dated
17.08.2022 and to quash the same as erroneous, illegal and ultravires and
consequently direct the second respondent to register the settlement deed
dated 17.08.2022 without insisting for the production of original parent
documents in the light of the order made by this Court in K.S.Vijayendran
Vs. I.G.of Registration 2011(2) LW 648.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24226 of 2022
For petitioner : Mr.P.Kalimuthu
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the second
respondent dated 17.08.2022 in reference No. RFL/Palladam/62/2022 and
quash the same and direct the second respondent to register the Settlement
Deed presented by the writ petitioner without insisting for the production of
original parent document.
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 petitioner presented a
document on 17.08.2022 for executing Settlement Deed in favour her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24226 of 2022
husband, before the second respondent. However, the said document was
refused to be registered by the second respondent on the ground that 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24226 of 2022
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 passsed 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
respondents submits 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24226 of 2022
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 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.
09.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
tri
To
1.The District Registrar,
The District Registrar Office,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Sub - Registrar,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24226 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
tri
W.P.No. 24226 of 2022
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
