Madras High Court
Kamaraj vs The Sub Registrar on 30 October, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P(MD)No.26060 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.26060 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.22094 of 2024
Kamaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Kadayam Sub Registrar Office,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondent
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/Kadayam/67/2024,
dated 21.10.2024 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same as illegal
and consequently, to direct the respondent to register the petitioner's settlement
deed dated 21.10.2024 in respect of the property in Ayan Punjai Survey No.
89(2) (including new Survey No.89/2A) to an extent of 26.50 Ares (northern
side) out of 1.31 acre situated at Pottalpudhur Village, Kadayam, Sub
Registration Circle, Cheranmahadevi Registration District within a stipulated
period as framed by this Court. within the time that may be stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian
For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P(MD)No.26060 of 2024
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
respondent dated 21.10.2024.
3.It is the grievance of the petitioner that when he presented the
settlement deed dated 21.10.2024, which is executed by him in favour of his
wife, namely, Rajeshwari, it was refused by the respondent, vide refusal check
slip dated 22.10.2024 on the ground that original document has not been
produced. Therefore, 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
SCC OnLine Mad 5868 and C. Moorthy v. Sub Registrar
Aruppukottai reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 3898, it was held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 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.
30.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Yuva
To
The Sub Registrar,
Kadayam Sub Registrar Office,
Tenkasi District.
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
