Madras High Court
Reslin Raj vs The Joint Sub Registrar on 18 October, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD).No.24446 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.24446 of 2024
Reslin Raj ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Joint Sub Registrar,
Moolakaraipatti,
Tirunelveli 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 pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip issued
by the respondent made in No.RFL/%yf;fiug;gl;b/69/2024 dated
07.10.2024 and quash the same as illegal, consequently, direct the
respondent to register the sale deed dated 01.10.2024 presented for
registration on 01.10.2024 executed in favour of one Arumuga Perumal,
S/o.Duraipandi Nadar in respect of 3 plots in Nos.35,36 & 37 measuring
to an extent of 1271.25 sq.ft, 1222.50 sq.ft and 1625 sq.ft respectively
comprised in S.No.402/2 situated at Annai Nagar, Sathankulam Village,
Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
Page No.1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.24446 of 2024
ORDER
Challenging the impugned refusal check slip issued by the
respondent dated 07.10.2024, this writ petition has been filed.
2. Heard both sides. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute possession
and enjoyment of the property in Plot Nos.35, 36 and 37 measuring to an
extent of 1271.25 sq.ft, 1222.50 sq.ft and 1625 sq.ft in S.No.402/2
situated at Annai Nagar, Sathankulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District and he decided to sell that property in favour of one
Arumuga Perumal. In this regard, when the document was presented for
registration before the respondent, the same was refused by register on
the ground that original document has not been produced. Hence, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 refusal made by the
respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the
impugned check slip passed by the respondent dated 07.10.2024 in
No.RFL/%yf;fiug;gl;b/69/2024 is hereby set aside. The respondent is
directed to register the document presented by the petitioner within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No
costs.
18.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Rmk
To
The Joint Sub Registrar,
Moolakaraipatti,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Rmk
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
