Madras High Court
P.Thenappan vs The Sub Registrar on 25 September, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.18896 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.18896 of 2023
P.Thenappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Ponnamaravathy,
Pudukkottai District.
2.Amirthavalli
3.Aru.Muthukaruppan
4.N.Palaniyappan .... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in
RFL/Ponnamaravathy/36/2023 dated 23.06.2023 issued by the 1st respondent and
quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register and release
the document in favour of petitioner within the time fixed by this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.18896 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1
Mr.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy
for R2 & R3
No Appearance for R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in
RFL/Ponnamaravathy/36/2023 dated 23.06.2023 issued by the 1st respondent and
quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register and release
the document in favour of petitioner within the time fixed by this Court.
2. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that when the petitioner presented a
sale deed for registration, the first respondent refused to register the same on the
ground that parent document has not been produced and in respect of the subject
property a civil suit is pending. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this
Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that mere
pendency of a civil suit will not be a ground for refusing to register the sale deed.
Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Whereas, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
respondent would submit that since a suit is pending, the first respondent has
refused to register the sale deed and issued the impugned order. Hence, opposed
this petition.
5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first
respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and
perused the materials available on record.
6. This issue is no longer res integra. This Court already in several
judgments has held that mere pendency of a civil suit will not be a ground for
refuse to register the document. It is at the risk of the party to purchase the
property during the pendency of the suit. Such transfer is always subject to the
result of the suit. Therefore, mere pendency of a civil suit will not be a ground for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
refuse to register the document. This issue has already been elaborately discussed
by this Court in Subramani Vs. 1.The Sub-Registrar, Office of the SubRegistrar,
Rasipuram. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai [W.P.No.11056
of 2024, dated 26.04.2024].
7. Further, with regard to the finding that the original document has not
been produced is concerned, it is relevant to note that 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. In such view of the matter, the impugned refusal slip has to be
set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Therefore, following the said decisions, the impugned order issued by
the first respondent dated 22.12.2022 is set aside. Consequently, the first
respondent is directed to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner, within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
25.09.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
To
The Sub Registrar,
Ponnamaravathy,
Pudukkottai District.
25.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
