Madras High Court
Saravanan A vs The District Registrar on 25 October, 2024
W.P.No.31910 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.31910 of 2024
Saravanan A ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Puducherry Road,
Villupuram-605 602
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of Sub-Registrar-Valavanur,
Kalaingar Nagar, Valavanur,
Villupuram-605 108.
3.Annadurai ... 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 on
the file of the 2nd respondent in proceedings refusal check slip No:
RFL/Valavanur/64/2024 dated 15.10.2024 and quash the same as illegal,
incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the 2 nd respondent to
register the settlement deed dated 14.10.2024 presented by petitioner,
without insisting production of original parent document within a stipulated
time.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.31910 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Kumar
For R1 and R2 : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
By consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as respondents 1 and 2, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission
stage itself.
2. Aggrieved by the impugned refusal check slip in No:
RFL/Valavanur/64/2024, dated 15.10.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent
refusing to register the Settlement Deed dated 14.10.2024 presented for
registration, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he acquired right over the subject
property under a registered Sale Deed dated 28.10.2022. After purchase, the
petitioner executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his wife on 14.10.2024
and presented the same for registration before the 2nd respondent. The said
document was refused registration by the 2nd respondent on the ground that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner failed to produce the original title document in his favour.
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 found in the affidavit that the original parent title
document is in the custody of his father, who refused to handover the same,
submitted that failure to produce the original title document may not be a
ground to refuse registration as per the law settled by this Court in various
decisions.
5. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents 1 and 2, by relying on Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules,
submits that unless the original title document is produced by the petitioner,
the 2nd respondent cannot consider the document for registration.
6. The issue involved in this matter relating to production of original
title document was already 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In view of the law settled in the above mentioned case laws, the 2 nd
respondent is not justified in refusing registration on the ground that the
petitioner is failed to produce the original title document. Therefore, the
impugned refusal check slip in No: RFL/Valavanur/64/2024, dated
15.10.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside.
9. The petitioner is directed to represent the document for registration
before the 2nd respondent along with affidavit narrating the circumstances for
his failure to produce the original title document in his favour, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 2 nd
respondent shall consider the same for registration, if it is otherwise in order.
10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No
costs.
25.10.2024
(2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Puducherry Road,
Villupuram-605 602
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of Sub-Registrar-Valavanur,
Kalaingar Nagar, Valavanur,
Villupuram-605 108.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
25.10.2024
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
