Madras High Court
M.Sakthivel vs The District Registrar on 2 August, 2024
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
W.P.No.22369 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.22369 of 2024
and W.M.P. No.24364 of 2024
M.Sakthivel .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Registrar,
Salem District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Mechari, Salem District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Theevattipatty Police Station,
Salem District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings dated 12.07.2024 made in refusal
check slip in RFL/Mecheri/11/2024 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash
the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the
principles of natural justice and thereby, direct the 2nd respondents to
register the sale deed dated 12.07.2024 presented by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22369 of 2024
For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
Mr.S.Sugendran,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R3
ORDER
With the consent of both sides, this main Writ Petition itself is taken
up for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned refusal check slip
in Refusal Slip No.RFL/Mecheri/11/2024 issued by the 2nd respondent
dated 12.07.2024 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd
respondent to register the sale deed dated 12.07.2024 presented by the
petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and
Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 3rd respondent
and perused the materials available on record.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has purchased the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property from the vendor viz.,Mariyammal, W/o Perumal in survey
No.176/18 to an extent of 0.16.1.4 agricultural land and the sale
consideration was fixed at Rs.7,10,000/- and paid to the vendor. The
petitioner has verified all the revenue records, patta No.1013, A-Register,
Adangal and encroachment certificate. The petitioner's vendor had
purchased the property from her vendors viz., Perumal and Ramasami
through a registered sale deed in Doc.No.92/1978 dated 30.01.1978 on the
file of 2nd respondent -Sub-Registrar, Mecheri, Salem District. While the
petitioner's vendor has travelled in a bus from Ellakuttai village to
Theevattipatty bus stand, the document No.92/1978 dated 30.01.1978 was
misplaced and on the same day, the vendor had lodged a complaint before
the 3rd respondent police in CSR No.110/2016. Thereafter, the vendor had
given a paper publication in Dina Thanthi daily. The 3rd respondent had also
issued a non-traceable certificate. The petitioner and his vendor had prepared
sale deed for registration and applied for registration through online along
with certified copy of parent Document No.92/1978 dated 30.01.1978 and
after due verification, they were given temporary registration
No.TP/187730914/2024 vide Serial No.50(D650). When the petitioner
presented the sale deed for registration before the 2nd respondent, he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
refused to receive the same without parent document. Challenging the
same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
parent document had been missing and hence, he is not able to produce the
same before the registering authorities and considering the same, non
traceable certificate has been issued by the third respondent.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 3rd
respondent has submitted that the non traceable certificate produced by the
petitioner is a valid and true certificate and only at the time of executing
sale deed, the Sub Inspector seal has been affixed and the same has been
corrected later.
7. The petitioner has challenged the Refusal Check Slip issued by the
respondent. As the order is against the judgment of this Court, no counter is
required.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It is relevant to note that this Court, in the case of Federal Bank v
Sub Registrar, reported in 2023 (2) CTC 289, has held that Sub Rule XX of
Rule 162 has no statutory backing. The said order has been followed by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Ariyanatchi v Inspector
General made in W.A.(MD).No. 856 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023, wherein,
the Division Bench of this Court has held that, for instance, the original
document is held by one co-owner, the Sub-Registrar can always take an
undertaking or a declaration in the form of an affidavit from the vendors to
the effect that the original document is with the said person and register the
document. Hence, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a document
merely because the original parent deed has not been produced. In such
view of the matter, the impugned refusal slip has to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned refusal
slip of the respondent 12.07.2024 stands quashed and the second respondent
is directed to register the sale deed dated 12.07.2024 executed in favour of
the petitioner by his vendor and presented for registration, within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
02.08.2024
raa
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The District Registrar,
Salem District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Mechari, Salem District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Theevattipatty Police Station,
Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
raa
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
