Madras High Court
K.Mohamed Sirajudeen vs The District Registrar on 3 October, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.23659 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.23659 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD).No.20036 of 2024
1.K.Mohamed Sirajudeen
2.K.Abdul Hameed ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Panpozhi Sub Registrar Office,
Shencottai Main Road,
Ponpazhi (PO),
Tenkasi District. .... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned refusal check slip returned by the second
respondent No.RFL/Panpozhi/75/2024 dated 24.09.2024 and quash the same and
consequently direct the second respondent to register the partition deed dated
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23659 of 2024
24.09.2024 presented by the petitioners without insisting original parent
document.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohamed Asif
For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Challenge has been made against the refusal check slip issued by the
second respondent in Refusal No.RFL/Panpozhi/75/2024, dated 24.09.2024,
refusing the document submitted by the petitioners on the ground of parent
document has not been produced.
2. Heard Mr.N.Mohamed Asif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice
on behalf of the respondents. By consent, this writ petition has been taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the subject property
jointly from one Pattan Chettiyar and his legal heirs vide Doc No.628/2000 dated
15.05.2000 and the same was registered by the Sub Registrar, Panpozhi, Tenkasi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
District. From the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the
subject property. Now, the petitioners decided to divide the said property equally
and they also prepared partition deed. When the partition deed was presented
before the second respondent for registration, the same was refused on the ground
that the parent document has not been produced. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res-integra, in view of
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Subramani vs. the Sub
Registrar and others [WP.No.11056 of 2024, dated 26.04.2024], in which it has
been held as follows:
“c. With regard to the refusal on the absence of parent document,
this Court in the case of K.S. Vijayendran v. The Inspector General of
Registration reported in (2011) 2 LW 648, Lakshmi Ammal v. The Sub
Registrar, Villivakkam reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 5868 and C.
Moorthy v. Sub Registrar Aruppukottai reported in 2018 SCC OnLine
Mad 3898, it was held that absence of a parent document is no ground
to refuse registration. Pursuant to these judgments, sub-rule XX was
introduced in Rule 162 authorizing the Sub-Registrar to refuse
registration for non-production of the original title deed as required by
Rule 55-A. 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,
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
Considering the above settled position of law, the Registrar
cannot refuse to register the document merely on the ground of non
production of parent document.”
In the light of the above settled provision of law, the impugned refusal slip cannot
be sustained in the eye of law.
5.Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second
respondent in Refusal No.RFL/Panpozhi/75/2024 dated 24.09.2024, is set side and
this writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to register the
document presented by the petitioners within a period of seven days from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.10.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Rmk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Panpozhi Sub Registrar Office,
Shencottai Main Road,
Ponpazhi (PO),
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Rmk
03.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
