Madras High Court
Vellaichamy vs The Sub Registrar No.Ii on 17 October, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.29574 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.29574 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD).No.25533 of 2023
Vellaichamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar No.II,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records of the impugned refusal check slip
No.RFL/Velippattinam/51/2023 dated 21.11.2023 on the file of the
respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the
respondent to register the mortgage deed dated 21.11.2023 executed by
the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selva Aditya
For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
Page No.1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.29574 of 2023
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned refusal
check slip No.RFL/Velippattinam/51/2023, dated 21.11.2023, issued by
the respondent with consequential direction to the respondent to register
the mortgage deed dated 21.11.2023 executed by the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question
originally belonged to his grandfather. After his death, the petitioner's
father inherited the said property and thereafter, he executed a sale deed
in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is in
possession and enjoyment of the said property. While that being so,
when the petitioner presented the mortgage deed in favour of one
Thirumurugan in respect of the said property, the same was refused on
the ground that title deed has not been produced.
3. At the outset, this Court is of the view that it is not for the Sub
Registrar to go into the title 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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.”
4. Besides, it is only a contract between the mortgagor and
mortgagee. When the mortgagee satisfied with the title and entered into
a contract, the registration of the document cannot be denied merely on
the ground of non-production of title deed. In such view of the matter,
the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent in
No.RFL/Velippattinam/51/2023 dated 21.11.2023, is quashed and this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Rmk
Writ Petition is allowed. 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. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Rmk
To
The Sub Registrar No.II,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
