Madras High Court
A.Vijayashree vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 2 September, 2024
W.P.No.24881 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :02.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P No.24881 of 2024
A.Vijayashree ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Chennai North, Kuralagam,
1st Floor, Chennai 600 108.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Office of Sub Registrar – Sowcarpet,
No.69, Armenian Street, Mannadi,
George Town, Chennai 600 001. ..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to register the
Release Deed presented by the petitioner and her siblings without insisting for
the original or duplicate of the Partition Deed dated 22.10.1963 registered as
document No.4707 of 1963 SRO, West Madras.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24881 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ashokapathy
for M/s.Pass Associates
For Respondents : Mr.M.Shahjahan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner herein seeks a direction to 3rd respondent to register the
release deed presented by her and her siblings without insisting the original or
duplicate of the partition deed dated 22.10.1963 registered as Document
No.4707 of 1963, SRO, West Madras.
2. According to the petitioner, the property bearing New Door No.62,
Old No.79, previous Old No.22, Acharappan street, George Town, Chennai
was allotted to petitioner's father K.T.Krishnamurthy in a registered partition
deed dated 22.10.1963 between him and his brothers. After death of petitioner's
father, she and her other siblings wanted to execute a release deed in favour of
petitioner's brothers namely K.Chandran, K.K.Balaji and sister
Mrs.M.Sangeetha. When the petitioner handed over the draft of the release
deed to the 3rd respondent for perusal, he insisted that unless the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
produced either original partition deed or duplicate of the same, the release
deed would not be registered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Special Government Pleader who is taking notice for the respondents.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it has been asserted by
the petitioner that original partition deed dated 22.10.1963 was originally in the
custody of petitioner's paternal uncle K.T.Narayanaswami and he sold the
property allotted to him to a third party and also handed over the original
document to the purchaser. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to
produce either original partition deed or duplicate of the same at the time of
registration.
5. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M.Ariyanatchi and
other Vs The Inspector General of Registration in W.A.(MD).No.856 of
2023, had taken a view that in case the original document is not in the custody
of the presentant, the registering authority can get an affidavit from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
presentant and go ahead with the registration. The relevant observation of the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court reads as follows:-
“13. No doubt, requirement to produce the
original document would be a safer method by which
the Sub Registrar can ensure that the property belongs
to the executant. But, that is not the only method. In the
case on hand, it is clearly seen that the earlier
document was also registered with the very same Sub
Registrar and after computerization and digitization,
the document is available online for the Sub Registrar
to peruse. He can always take an undertaking or a
declaration in the form of a sworn affidavit from the
vendors to the effect that the original document is with
their siblings and register the document. Conduct of an
enquiry of the nature that is recommended under
Clause (f), extracted supra, would only lead to
confusion. If the other legal heirs want to claim
exclusive title, it is always open to them to approach the
competent Civil Court and if they are able to establish
their exclusive right before the Civil Court, the
alienation will be invalid. In such circumstances, when
the substantive law takes care of and protects any
misuse or abuse, we do not think that Rule 55-A of the
Registration Rules is the only method by which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fraudulent transactions are prevented.
14. In the light of the above, we do not think that
insistence on production of original document, in all
cases across the Board, could be sustained. Wherever
the vendor is a co-owner and it is claimed that the
original document is in the hands of the other co-
owners, who are reluctant to part with it, the Registrar
can always take a declaration in the form of a sworn
affidavit from the co-owner, who is the executant and
register the document. If the other siblings dispute the
rights of the executant, they can also do so before the
Civil Court and there is no law that authorizes the
Registrar to conduct a trial to decide title to the
property in question. What is sought to be done in the
garb of an enquiry is exactly that. We are, therefore,
convinced that the order of the Writ Court as well as
the check slip issued by the Sub Registrar cannot be
sustained.
15. The writ appeal is allowed and the order of
the Writ Court, dated 24.04.2023, passed in W.P.(MD)
No.9525 of 2023 is set aside. The writ petition in
W.P.(MD) No.9525 of 2023 will stand allowed. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
check slip issued by the Sub Registrar is quashed. The
Joint Sub-Registrar / second respondent is directed to
register the document, after getting a declaration in the
form of sworn affidavit from the executants of the
document that the original sale deed dated 27.01.2003
executed in favour of Shanmugam is in the hands of the
male heirs of Shanmugal Ambalam and on production
of the certified copy of the document along with the
other documents, namely, Patta, death certificate and
legal heirship certificate of Shanmugam Ambalam. The
process of registration shall be completed within fifteen
days from the date of representation of the document by
the appellants. Since we have quashed the rejection of
the check slip today, the appellants will have four
months time to represent the document for registration
from today. No costs.”
6. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition
by directing the 3rd respondent to register the release deed presented by the
petitioner and her siblings without insisting the production of original or
duplicate of the partition deed dated 22.10.1963 if it it otherwise in order. It is
also made clear that the petitioner shall file an affidavit that original or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
duplicate of the partition deed is not available with her and the same is
available in the custody of her relatives as stated supra. The petitioner shall
also produce the certified copy of the partition deed dated 22.10.1963 before
the registering authority at the time of registration.
7. With these observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
02.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
nr
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai 600 028.
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nr
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Chennai North, Kuralagam,
1st Floor, Chennai 600 108.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Office of Sub Registrar – Sowcarpet,
No.69, Armenian Street, Mannadi,
George Town, Chennai 600 001.
02.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
