R.Bagyam vs The Joint Registrar No
2024 Latest Caselaw 19737 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19737 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 October, 2024

Madras High Court

R.Bagyam vs The Joint Registrar No on 21 October, 2024

                                                                                    W.P.No.30065 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 21.10.2024

                                                           CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

                                                  W.P.No.30065 of 2024

                     R.Bagyam                                                    ... Petitioner

                                                             vs.

                     The Joint Registrar No.1,
                     Sub Registrar Office,
                     Erode.                                                      ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
                     pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip in refusal number RFL/JOINT
                     REGISTRAR ERODE No.1/55/2024 dated 21.08.2024 and to quash the
                     same as illegal, incompetent and ultra vires and consequently direct the
                     respondent to register the Gift Settlement Deed dated 21.08.2024 executed
                     by the petitioner and without insisting the original document.


                                     For Petitioner      : Mr.M.Guruprasad


                                     For Respondent      : Mr.T.Chezhiyan
                                                           Additional Government Pleader

                                                          ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Aggrieved by the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/JOINT

REGISTRAR ERODE No.1/55/2024, dated 21.08.2024 issued by the

respondent refusing to register the Settlement Deed dated 21.08.2024

presented for registration, the petitioner has come before this Court.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the subject

property from one C.Ragupahty and his legal heirs under a registered Sale

Deed dated 24.06.1993 bearing Document No.2289 of 1993. Now, the

petitioner executed a Settlement Deed in favour of her son-R.Balakrishnan

on 21.08.2024 and presented the same for registration before the

respondent. The respondent refused registration on the ground that the

petitioner failed to produce the original title document dated 24.06.1993.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the original title document of the petitioner was misplaced and hence, she is

unable to produce the original title document before the respondent.

However, she expressed her willingness to produce the certified copy of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

original title document dated 24.06.1993 before the respondent with an

affidavit explaining the reason for her failure to produce the original title

document at the time of registration.

4. Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent, by relying on Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules,

submits that unless original parent title document is produced by the

petitioner, the Registering Authority cannot entertain the document

presented for registration.

5. The issue involved in this writ petition regarding failure of the

presentant to produce the original title document was considered by this

Court in Venugopal vs. Inspector General of Registration (Order made in

W.P.No.22270 of 2024 dated 14.08.2024). The relevant observation in the

said case law reads as follows:-

“16. The Proviso 3 to Rule 55-A does not say Non- Traceable Certificate shall be issued by police within a time frame. We cannot expect the petitioner, who presented the document for registration to wait endlessly expecting Non- Traceable Certificate. Further, Section 23 of Registration Act

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

compels presentant to present the document for registration within four months. Hence, presentant cannot wait indefinitely for non-traceable certificate by Police. The Proviso 3 to Rule 55-A(i) does not mention any time limit for issue of non- traceable certificate. Hence, if Police Authorities failed to issue certificate within time to enable presentant to comply with Section 23 of Registration Act, there is a danger of document being refused as presented out of time. Therefore, following the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Ariyanatchi case, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to register the document on petitioner fulfilling certain conditions, which can be treated as substantial compliance of Proviso 3 to Rule 55-A.

17. As mentioned earlier, failure to produce original title document is not a ground to refuse registration provided petitioner satisfy third proviso to Rule 55-A(i). Therefore, the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the 2nd respondent in RFL / CHENNIMALAI / 25 / 2024, dated 30.04.2024 is quashed and the petitioner is directed to represent the document before the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from today, along with an affidavit mentioning the fact of loss of original title document and untraceability of the same. The petitioner shall also enclose newspaper

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

advertisement issued by him in leading Tamil newspapers having wide circulation in Erode District. The Newspaper advertisement shall disclose loss of original title deed and intention of the Seller to convey the property. On fulfilment of these two conditions, the 2nd respondent is directed to register the same.