Madras High Court
Rajeshwari vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 24 October, 2024
W.P.No.31696 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.31696 of 2024
Rajeshwari ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028
2.The Sub-Registrar
Office of the Joint II Sub-Registrar,
Kamarajar Road, Taluk Office Campus,
Kanchipuram – 631 501 ... Respondents
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 of
impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in RFL/2 Joint Sub Registrar
Kanchipuram/32/2024 dated 25.09.2024 and quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary and non-est in law and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to
register the executed settlement deed dated 25.09.2024 and release the
registered settlement deed to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this
Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31696 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santosh
For Respondents : Mr.P.Harish
Government Advocate
ORDER
Aggrieved by the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/2 Joint Sub
Registrar Kanchipuram/32/2024, dated 25.09.2024 issued by the 2nd
respondent refusing to register the Settlement Deed presented for
registration on the ground that the presentant failed to produce the original
title document, the petitioner has come before this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the subject
property under a registered Sale Deed dated 27.02.1980 vide Document
No.500 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Kanchipuram. The
petitioner settled the subject property in favour of her daughter by executing
a Settlement Deed dated 25.09.2024. When the same was presented for
registration, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same on the ground
that the petitioner failed to produce the original of the parent title document.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this
Court to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would submit that
the original title document was misplaced by the petitioner and hence, she
produced certified copy of the same before the 2nd respondent for
registration. Inspite of the same, the 2nd respondent refused to register the
document. The learned counsel also submit that failure to produce the
original title document is not a ground to refuse registration.
4. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents, by relying on Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules, submits that
unless original parent document is produced by the petitioner, the
Registering Authority cannot entertain the document presented for
registration.
5. The issue relating to failure 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-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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.
18. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands allowed with the
above directions. No costs.”
6. The Division Bench of this Court in P.Pappu vs. The Sub
Registrar (Judgment made in W.A.No.1160 of 2024, dated 27.09.2024) also
held that failure to produce the original title document cannot be a ground to
refuse registration.
7. In view of the law settled in the above mentioned case laws, the
impugned refusal check slip in RFL/2 Joint Sub Registrar
Kanchipuram/32/2024 dated 25.09.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent cannot
be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The petitioner is directed to represent the document for registration
before the 2nd respondent along with affidavit mentioning the misplacement
of the original title document in favour of the petitioner and newspaper
advertisement as indicated above, within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. The 2nd respondent shall consider the
same for registration, if it is otherwise in order. No costs.
9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No
costs.
24.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028
2.The Sub-Registrar
Office of the Joint II Sub-Registrar,
Kamarajar Road, Taluk Office Campus,
Kanchipuram – 631 501
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
