Madras High Court
M.Rajeswari vs The District Registrar on 29 October, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P(MD)No.26157 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.26157 of 2024
M.Rajeswari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Madurai District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Kaathakkinaru Sub Registrar Office,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
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 relating to the impugned refusal Check Slip in
RFL/Kaathakkinaru/13/2024, dated 25.10.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent
and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and
consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to register the Dhana Settlement Deed
presented by the petitioner for registration without insisting for the production
of original parent document in the light of the order made by this Court in
Subramani Vs. The Sub Registrar, Rasipuram and another in W.P.(MD)No.
11056 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024 within a time frame that may be stipulated by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Soukath Ali
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P(MD)No.26157 of 2024
For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh,
Government Advocate
ORDER
By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2.Challenge has been made to the refusal check slip issued by the 2nd
respondent dated 25.10.2024.
3.It is the grievance of the petitioner that when she presented the
Dhana Settlement Deed dated 25.10.2024, which is executed by her in favour
of her sister, namely, Karthika, it was refused by the 2 nd respondent, vide refusal
check slip dated 25.10.2024, on the ground that original document has not been
produced. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
5.In such view of the matter, the refusal made by the 2nd respondent
on the ground that original document has not been produced, cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed,
accordingly, it is quashed. This Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the
2nd respondent to register the document presented by the petitioner, within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
29.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Yuva
To
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Madurai District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Kaathakkinaru Sub Registrar Office,
Madurai District.
29.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
