Madras High Court
Avudai vs The Sub Registrar on 19 September, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.22274 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.22274 of 2024
Avudai ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Thirumayam, Pudukkottai 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 pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip issued
by the respondent in Refusal No.RFL/Thirumayam/104/2024 dated
05.09.2024 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary,
illegal and without any legal basis and consequently directing the
respondent to register the document 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 Sivanadiyan VS
The Sub Registrar, Pudukkottai in W.P(MD).No.19745 of 2020 dated
11.02.2021 within time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
Page No.1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22274 of 2024
ORDER
Challenge has been made against the refusal check slip issued by
the respondent in Refusal No.RFL/Thirumayam/104/2024, dated
05.09.2024, refusing the document submitted by the petitioner on the
ground of parent document has not been produced.
2. Heard Mr.G.Mathavan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government
Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent, this
writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage
itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he aged about 90 years and to
meet out his medical expenses, he executed a sale deed in favour of one
Perumal, on 05.09.2024 and when the document was presented before
the respondent for registration, the same was refused on the ground that
the parent document has not been produced. It is the contention of the
petitioner that due to his old age, he lost the original document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In the light of the above settled provision of law, the impugned refusal
slip cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5.Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the
respondent in Refusal No.RFL/Thirumayam/104/2024, dated
05.09.2024, is set side and this writ petition is allowed. The respondent
is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner within a
period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.
19.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Rmk
To
The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Rmk
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
