Madras High Court
Veilmuthu vs The Sub Registrar on 17 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.10540 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.10540 of 2025
Veilmuthu ... Petitioner
vs.
The Sub Registrar,
North Veeravanallur Sub Registrar Office,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number
RFL/North Veeravanallur/16/2025 dated 29.03.2025 was issued by
the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to
direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 29.03.2025 in
respect of the property in Ayan Punja Survey No.3/1 to the extent of 5
cents out of 24 cents from total extent of 1.56 acre situated at South
Veeravanallur - I Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District
within a stipulated period as framed by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian
For Respondent :Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam
Government Advocate
*****
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 03:19:51 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.10540 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for the following relief:
“Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number
RFL/North Veeravanallur/16/2025 dated 29.03.2025 was
issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and
consequently to direct the respondent to register the sale deed
dated 29.03.2025 in respect of the property in Ayan Punja
Survey No.3/1 to the extent of 5 cents out of 24 cents from total
extent of 1.56 acre situated at South Veeravanallur - I Village,
Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District within a stipulated
period as framed by this Court.”
2.The petitioner states that the property situated in S.No.3/1 of
South Veeravanallur-1 Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli
District, belongs to one Sankaranarayana Iyer. The said
Sankaranarayana Iyer executed a 'WILL' on 05.05.1945 in favour of
his brother, Sankaranarayanan @ Venkatesan and his nephew minor
Raman. Sankaranarayana Iyer passed away on 02.02.1947. On his
death, his brother, Sankaranarayanan @ Venkatesan and minor
Raman succeeded to the estate. By lapse of time, Sankaranarayanan
@ Venkatesan passed away and Raman became the absolute owner of
the property. Raman, facing disturbance to his possession, presented
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 03:19:51 pm )
a suit in O.S.No.37 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court at
Ambasamudram. The said suit was settled out of Court. For the
purpose of this Writ Petition, it is suffice to record that in the said
suit, the 'WILL', dated 05.05.1945 was produced as a document.
3.Thereafter, Raman executed a power of attorney in favour of
one Natarajan on 19.07.2016, before the Sub Registrar,
Vikramasingapuram, Tirunelveli District. The said document was
registered as Doc.No.849/2016. The said Natarajan executed a sale
deed on 26.06.2018 with respect to 19 cents out of 24 cents in favour
of one Suryanarayanan. The sale deed was also registered in Doc.No.
1063/2018.
4.The power agent, Natarajan, executed a sale deed for the
remaining extent of 5 cents in favour of the Writ Petitioner on
29.03.2025. The sale deed was presented for registration on the same
day. The respondent refused to register the document by the
impugned order stating that the 'WILL' and the judgment in O.S>No.
37 of 2012 had not been produced. Challenging the same, the present
Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 03:19:51 pm )
5.I heard Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian for the petitioner and
Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
6.Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian, reiterated the contentions in
the affidavit and pleaded that in the light of the judgment of this Court
in P.Pappu vs- Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, reported in 2024 (5) CTC
575, there is no necessity to produce original title deeds prior to
registration.
7.Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, on instructions, reported that the Sub
Registrar did not demand the original deed, as a condition precedent
for registration, but only called upon the petitioner to produce the
copies of the same in order to complete the process of registration.
Mr.P.T.Thiraviam added that the documents filed along with the typed
set of papers in the Writ Petition had not been produced before the
Sub Registrar and that had those documents been produced, the
registration of the sale deed would have gone through smoothly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 03:19:51 pm )
8.It has been settled by the judgment in P.Pappu's case relied
upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as a condition
precedent for registration of a document, the registrar cannot insist
upon production of previous documents. Further more, in K.Gopi vs
Sub Registrar and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 740, the
Supreme Court held as follows:
“15.The registering officer is not concerned with the title
held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide
whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant
executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of
which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to
register the document if all the procedural compliances are made
and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration
charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme
of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or
Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to
the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering
authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present
before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him,
subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the
document must be registered. The execution and registration of a
document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if
any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right,
title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot
effect any transfer.”
9.This makes it clear that it is not the business of the Sub
Registrar to demand documents or satisfy himself with respect to the
title prior to registration of a document, if the document otherwise
complies with the requirements of the Registration Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 03:19:51 pm )
10.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal
check slip, dated 29.03.2025, is quashed. The respondent is directed
to register the sale deed executed by Mr.Natarajan in favour of the
Writ Petitioner on 29.03.2025 within a period of one week from today.
11.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
12.Post the matter on 29.04.2025 for reporting compliance.
Index :Yes / No 17.04.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
cmr
To
The Sub Registrar,
North Veeravanallur Sub Registrar Office,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 03:19:51 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
cmr
17.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2025 03:19:51 pm )
