Madras High Court
G.Nandhakumar vs The Sub-Registrar on 30 August, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.12686 of 2020
G.Nandhakumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Chokkikulam,
Madurai.
2.L.I.C Housing Finance Limited,
Represented by its Manager,
K.R.V.Arcade,
No.16/17, North Veli Street,
Madurai-1.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, quashing the order dated
15.09.2020 in RFL/Chokkikulam/5/2020 by the first respondent and directing the
first respondent to register the sale deed dated 15.09.2020 without insisting on
production of the original sale deed dated 01.04.1991.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajaraman
For R-1 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Special Government Pleader
For R-2 :Mr.V.Veera Pandiyan
For M/s. Vast Law Associates
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 15.09.2020 with a
consequential direction to register the sale deed dated 15.09.2020 without
insisting on production of the original sale deed dated 01.04.1991.
2. The petitioner has purchased the disputed property in Plot No.35, Vasu
Nagar, Narayanapuram, Madurai. The said land originally belongs to one
K.K.R.Mohanasundaram, son of K.K.Ramachandran. The said
K.K.R.Mohanasundaram obtained loan from the LIC of India, Madurai Divisional
Office by mortgaging the aforesaid property and he has handed over the original
document to the office of LIC. Subsequently, the petitioner had redeemed the
mortgage. However, the original document of said K.K.R.Mohanasundaram was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
lost by the LIC. The said vendor has also initiated proceedings against LIC. In
such circumstances, the petitioner is not able to produce the original documents.
The issue is already considered by several judgments of this Court. One such
judgment is rendered in W.P.(MD).No.19745 of 2020 vide order dated 11.02.2021
reported in 2021 2 CTC 526, wherein it is held that it is a settled legal proposition
that the original documents cannot be insisted for registering the document. The
relevant portion of the order 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 the 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 thescheme of the Act, which governs the
registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.In fact, in one of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondent himself has conceded the legal position. In that view
of the matter, the reliance placed by the Department on the latest
order of the learned single Judge needs to be held as not valid.
10.In the above circumstances, the impugned refusal slip in
R.F.L/1, Joint Sub-Registrar, Pudukottai /167/2020 dated
10.12.2020 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to
register the documents presented by the petitioner for
registration, if the document is otherwise in order, without
insisting on the production of original parent document, in terms
of the law laid down by this Court in the three decisions as cited
supra.
3. Therefore following the same, this court is of the considered opinion that
the respondents cannot insist the petitioner for production of original document
dated 01.04.1991. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. The first respondent is
directed to register the documents without insisting on production of the original
documents. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
30.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
NCC : Yes / No
Nsr/Sml
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Chokkikulam,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SRIMATHY, J
Nsr/Sml
W.P.(MD)No.12686 of 2020
30.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
