Madras High Court
Mohamed Younus vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 19 September, 2024
W.P No.27006 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P No.27006 of 2024
Mohamed Younus ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration
Tamil Nadu
Office of Inspector General of Registration
Foreshore Estate Chennai.
2.The District Registrar (Administration)
Office of the District Registrar
South Chennai, Registration District
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3.The Sub-Registrar
Velachery
Office of Sub-Registrar
Velachery Chenai. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file
of the second respondent dated 13.12.2023 in Na.Ka.No.20567/A1/2023,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P No.27006 of 2024
confirming the order of the refusal under check slip in dated 22.11.2023 on the
file of the third respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the third
respondent to receive the sale deed submitted in TP/165368660/2023 dated
22.11.2023 and register the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.M.Shahjahan for R1 to R3
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent refusing to
register the sale deed presented for registration on the ground that the
petitioner failed to produce the original parent documents, he filed an appeal
before the second respondent. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the
order passed by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property measuring an
extent of 5600 sq.ft., situated in Plot Nos.188 & 189 in Sri Balaji Nagar in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No.134/3, New S.No.134/41 at Solinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District,
originally belonged to one Parthasarathy. He sold the said property to one
Chellammal on 20.05.1964 and she executed a settlement deed in favour of her
daughter C.Ranjitham vide settlement deed dated 30.07.2020. The petitioner
purchased the above property from Ranjitham. Subsequently, the petitioner
sold a half share of the property with an extent of 2800 sq.ft., in Plot No.188 to
Swaminathan under the sale deed dated 15.07.2022. At the time of sale, the
parent documents were handed over to the purchaser through power agent of
the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the parent documents of
the petitioner are not with him.
3. Subsequently, Plot No.189 was subdivided into Plot No.189/A
and 189B. Plot No.189/A with an extent of 1400 sq.ft., was sold to one
Chandrasekaran and his wife Jesitha. Now, the petitioner wants to sell the
remaining 1400 sq.ft in Plot No.189/B in favour of N.Mohammed Harif and
executed a sale deed dated 22.11.2023 and the same was presented for
registration. The third respondent rejected registration on the ground that the
petitioner failed to produce the parent documents. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent and appeal was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disposed of by directing the petitioner to produce the parent documents before
the third respondent. The order passed by the first respondent is before this
Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that failing to
produce the original document is not a ground for rejection of the document
presented for registration. The petitioner is unable to produce the parent
documents as they were already handed over to the purchaser of the portion of
the property.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for
the respondents 1 & 2, by relying on Rule 55-A framed under Registration Act,
submitted that unless the original title documents are produced, the respondent
cannot register the documents.
6. The question relating to non production of the original title
documents was already considered by the Division Bench of this Court, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case of M.Ariyanatchi and other Vs The Inspector General of Registration
in W.A.(MD).No.856 of 2023. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Registration Rules is the only method by which
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
check slip issued by the Sub Registrar is quashed. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
7. In view of the settled position, even if the petitioner fails to
produce the original documents for registration, the same cannot be rejected.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent confirming the
refusal check slip issued by the third respondent is quashed and the Writ
Petition stands allowed. The petitioner is directed to represent the document
before the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
receipt of copy of this order along with the affidavit and other documents as
indicated in Ariyanatchi case cited supra and the respondent shall register the
same if it is otherwise in order.
8. With these observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No
costs.
19.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
dna
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration
Tamil Nadu
Office of Inspector General of Registration
Foreshore Estate Chennai.
2.The District Registrar (Administration)
Office of the District Registrar
South Chennai, Registration District
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3.The Sub-Registrar
Velachery
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Office of Sub-Registrar
Velachery Chenai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dna
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
