Madras High Court
Barathy vs The District Registrar on 20 September, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P(MD)No.22389 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P(MD)No.22389 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)No.18970 of 2024
Barathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Parasala,
Neyyattinkarai Taluk,
Thiruvananthapuram District,
Kerala Strate.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Valliyoor Police Station,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned check slip dated 19.06.2024 and quash the
same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.22389 of 2024
settlement deed dated 19.06.2024 which was executed by the petitioner in
favour of her son S. Karthick.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar
For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Satheesh,
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
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 2nd
respondent dated 19.06.2024.
3.According to the petitioner, she had purchased the property in
Survey No.1783/1 to an extent of 1 acre 30 cents situated at North Valliyoor
Village, from one Chellammal through her power agent, namely, Gopal Pillai
through a registered sale deed dated 16.04.1994. From the date of purchase she
is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In such
circumstances, she has executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, namely,
S.Karthick on 19.06.2024 in respect of the property in question. When she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
presented the same for registration, it was refused by the 2nd respondent, vide
refusal check slip dated 19.06.2024, 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 2nd 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 2nd 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.
20.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Registrar,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Parasala,
Neyyattinkarai Taluk,
Thiruvananthapuram District,
Kerala Strate.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Valliyoor Police Station,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
Yuva
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
