Madras High Court
S.Balusamy vs The Sub Registrar on 4 October, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P(MD)No.23665 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.23665 of 2024
S.Balusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Gangaikondan,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to
register the document to be presented by the petitioner with regard to the survey
Numbers: 19/5B, 96/1, 96/2, 97/3, 98/1A, 19/5D, 41/2Part, 19/5C, 41/4 Part &
43/3 Part, 16, 19/4, 19/3, 207/6, 41/2 Part and 41/4 Part & 43/3 Part situated at
Kalappaipatti Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Tirunelveli District without insisting
the original parent document bearing document No.3600/2008 dated
19.11.2008 within a time framed fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P(MD)No.23665 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of
mandamus to direct the respondent to register the document to be presented by
the petitioner with regard to the survey Numbers: 19/5B, 96/1, 96/2, 97/3,
98/1A, 19/5D, 41/2Part, 19/5C, 41/4 Part & 43/3 Part, 16, 19/4, 19/3, 207/6,
41/2 Part and 41/4 Part & 43/3 Part situated at Kalappaipatti Village,
Ottapidaram Taluk, Tirunelveli District without insisting the original parent
document bearing document No.3600/2008 dated 19.11.2008.
2. Heard both sides. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property belongs to
him and he intended to sell his property in favour of third party. When the
document was presented for registration, the registering authority refused to
register the same insisting the petitioner to produce the parent document.
According to him, the original document is in the custody of one Peer
Mohammed. Hence, the petitioner seeks direction of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 respondent cannot insist
for production of original parent document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Rmk
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent is
directed to register the petition mentioned document within a period of seven
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
04.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Rmk
To
The Sub Registrar,
Gangaikondan,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
