Madras High Court
S.Kanagaraj vs The Sub-Registrar on 24 October, 2024
W.P.No.31271 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.31271 of 2024
S.Kanagaraj ... Petitioner
vs.
The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar Office,
Salem East Joint 1,
Salem District. ... 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
relating to the Impugned Refusal Check Slip in No. RFL/Salem East Joint 1
SRO/157/2024 dated 27.09.2024 issued by the respondent and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondent to register the Settlement Deed
dated 27.09.2024 presented by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Ramanathan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
By consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as respondent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage
itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Aggrieved by the impugned Refusal Check Slip in No. RFL/Salem
East Joint 1 SRO/157/2024, dated 27.09.2024 issued by the respondent
refusing to register the Settlement Deed dated 27.09.2024 presented for
registration, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. According to the petitioner, originally the petitioner and his wife-
Krishnaveni purchased 3900 sq.feet of land in Survey No.207/1 situated at
Ammapettai Village, Salem Town, Salem from one Arumugam through his
Power Agent-C.Balasubramanian under a registered Sale Deed dated
26.08.1982 vide Document No.2678 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Registrar
Office, Salem East Joint 1, Salem District. A portion of the said property
was settled by them in favour of their elder daughter-Kamatchi on
12.04.2017 and the said document was registered as Document No.1167 of
2017 on the file of the respondent. Now, the petitioner and his wife want to
settle the property retained by them in favour of their other sons and
daughter. The petitioner and his wife executed a Settlement Deed on
27.09.2024 and presented the same for registration before the respondent.
The same was refused registration mainly on the ground that the petitioner
failed to produce the original parent title document dated 26.08.1982.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this
Court to the averments contained in the affidavit submitted that the original
parent title document was misplaced during transit and therefore, he is
unable to produce the same before the Registering Authority. The learned
counsel further submitted that failure to produce the original title document
is not a ground to refuse registration.
5. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent, by relying on Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules, submits
that unless the original title document is produced by the petitioner, the
same cannot be considered for registration by the Registering Authority.
6. The question relating to failure to produce original parent 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“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
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.”
7. 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
expressed the view that failure of the presentant to produce the original title
document cannot be a ground to reject the registration.
8. In view of the law settled in the above mentioned case laws, the
impugned Refusal Check Slip in No. RFL/Salem East Joint 1
SRO/157/2024, dated 27.09.2024 issued by the respondent cannot be
allowed to stand and accordingly, the same is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The petitioner is directed to represent the document for registration
before the respondent along with affidavit mentioning the misplacement of
the original title document and newspaper advertisement in Tamil Daily
having circulation in Salem District as indicated in Venugopal case cited
supra, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. The respondent shall consider the same for registration, if it is
otherwise in order. No costs.
10. 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
The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar Office,
Salem East Joint 1,
Salem District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
