Madras High Court
C.Anand vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 30 October, 2024
W.P.No.32518 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.32518 of 2024
C.Anand ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.Inspector General of Registration,
No:100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028
2.The District Registrar,
O/o.District Registrar,
Chennai Central Zone,
No.268, Bharathi Salai,
Express Estate, Royapettah,
Chennai – 600 014
3.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o.Sub-Registrar,
Periamet,
Chennai – 600003. ... 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
relating to the impugned order passed by 3rd Respondent dated 09.09.2024
made in Refusal Check Slip Reference No.RFL/Periamet/72/2024 refusing to
register the Lease Deed and to quash the same and consequently directing
the 3rd Respondent to register Lease Deed dated 09.09.2024, executed by
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32518 of 2024
Dr.V.Chockalingam, S/o.Dr.C.Venkatachalam to and in favour of
Mr.R.Saravana Banu, S/o.Rathinam, on the file of Sub-Registrar, Periamet.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.P.Harish
Government Advocate
ORDER
By consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as respondents, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage
itself.
2. Aggrieved by the impugned Refusal Check Slip in
No.RFL/Periamet/72/2024, dated 09.09.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent
refusing to register the Lease Deed presented for registration, the petitioner
has come before this Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the subject property
under a registered Sale Deed dated 22.04.1988. He executed a Lease Deed
in favour of M/s.Punjab National Bank, Taylors Road Branch, Chennai on
09.09.2024 and presented the same for registration before the 3rd
respondent. The registration of the same was refused mainly on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the petitioner failed to produce the original title document in his favour.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
failure of the petitioner to produce the original title document is not a ground
to refuse registration of Lease Deed. He relied on the averment found in the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and submitted that the original
title document was misplaced as early as 2009 and police complaint was
also lodged in this regard.
5. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents, by relying on Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules, submits that
unless original title document is produced by the petitioner, the 3 rd
respondent cannot consider the document for registration.
6. The issue relating to non-production of original title document by
the presentant 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 held that production of original title document is not essential for the
purpose of registration of subsequent document.
8. In view of the law settled in the above mentioned case laws, the 3rd
respondent is not entitled to refuse registration of the Lease Deed on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original title document in his
favour. Accordingly, the impugned Refusal Check Slip in
No.RFL/Periamet/72/2024, dated 09.09.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent
is set aside.
9. The petitioner is directed to represent the document before the 3rd
respondent for registration along with affidavit narrating the reason for his
failure to produce the original title document in his favour and newspaper
advertisement as indicated above, within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. The 3rd 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.
30.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.Inspector General of Registration,
No:100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028
2.The District Registrar,
O/o.District Registrar,
Chennai Central Zone,
No.268, Bharathi Salai,
Express Estate, Royapettah,
Chennai – 600 014
3.The Sub-Registrar,
O/o.Sub-Registrar,
Periamet,
Chennai – 600003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
