Madras High Court
P.Annakili vs The Sub Registrar on 29 October, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P(MD)No.26191 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.26191 of 2024
P.Annakili ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Murappanadu,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
register the general power of attorney deed to be presented by the petitioner,
without insisting the original parent documents in respect of the land comprised
in ayan punja Survey No.444/2, 446/1 and 446/2 in “Eden Garden” Section -B
No.63 to the extent of 25 cents situated in Krishnapuram Village, Palayamkottai
Union, Tirunelveli District within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that when she presented the draft
power of attorney deed dated 24.10.2024, the respondent has refused to receive
on the ground that original document has not been produced. Therefore, the
petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
3.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
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
4.In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed with a
direction to the 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.10.2024
(3/3)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
To
The Sub Registrar,
Murappanadu,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Yuva
29.10.2024
(3/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
