Madras High Court
V.Kodis vs The Sub Registrar on 22 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)Nos.10966 and 10967 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) Nos.10966 and 10967 of 2025
V.Kodis
... Petitioner in both W.Ps.,
vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Kottaram Sub Registrar Office,
Kottaram,
Kanyakumari District.
... Respondent in both W.Ps.,
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the
respondent in RFL/Kottaram/164/2024 and
RFL/Kottaram/165/2024 dated 06.11.2024 and quash the same and
further directing the respondent to entertain the release deed dated
24.10.2024 for registration and consequently to register and release
the same.
For Petitioner
in both W.Ps, :Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondent
in both W.Ps., :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 11:15:32 am )
W.P.(MD)Nos.10966 and 10967 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed seeking for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings of the respondent in RFL/Kottaram/164/2024
and RFL/Kottaram/165/2024 dated 06.11.2024, to quash the same
and to direct the respondent to entertain the release deed dated
24.10.2024 for registration and to release the same.
2.The petitioner, in order to get proper title to the property had
along with his mother and other siblings, executed two release deeds
in favour of the subsequent purchasers of the property from his
family, namely, Alphonse and Julise. They presented the release deeds
on 24.10.2024, which was refused to be registered under the
impugned orders.
3.The ground for refusal is that the original of the title deeds
and the death and legal heirship certificate of the petitioner's
grandfather, namely, Bagavathiappan Nadar, had not been produced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 11:15:32 am )
W.P.(MD)Nos.10966 and 10967 of 2025
4.I heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondent.
5.Mr.M.P.Senthil urges that the issue is covered by a judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Pappu Vs., The Sub-
Registrar, Rasipuram, 2024 (5) CTC 575. He states that the death
of Bagavathiappan Nadar had taken place decades ago, when the
death certificate and the legal heirship certificate were not issued, as a
course, as is being done now. He further relies upon the order passed
by the learned District Judge at Kanyakumari in G.W.O.P.No.101 of
2021 dated 15.06.2024 to adds that having obtained an order from
the Court, the petitioner is not in a position to execute the document.
6.Per contra, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar points out that Pappu's case
did not take notice of the judgment in Ammasi Kutti and another
Vs. S.Manoharan and others, W.A.(MD) No.1989 of 2019, dated
30.04.2021. He points out that Rule 55-A(i) of the Registration Rules
does not govern the case, but it is the case of Rule 55-A(ii). Therefore,
this question of law should be referred to a Larger Bench.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 11:15:32 am )
W.P.(MD)Nos.10966 and 10967 of 2025
7.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I
have gone through the records.
8.Mr.R.Suresh Kumar is correct that Rule 55-A(i) of the
Registration Rules had been framed pursuant to the order passed in
Ammasi Kutti's case. He is also correct that the said judgment has not
been referred to by the Division Bench of this Court in Pappu's case.
However, the Supreme Court has settled the issue in K.Gopi Vs. Sub
Registrar and another, 2025 (2) CTC 777, holding that Rule 55-A(i)
is unconstitutional. Rule 55-A(ii) of the Registration Rules is not a
stand alone provision that depends upon the existence of the
circumstances mentioned under Rule 55-A(i). When Rule 55A(i) has
been struck down, I necessarily have to follow the view of the Division
Bench, which is in line with a view taken by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, judicial discipline requires that I follow the view in Pappu's
case. I should also point out that though the State was put on notice
in K.Gopi's case, it did not bring to the notice of the Supreme Court
regarding the view taken by the Division Bench in Ammasi Kutti's case.
9.Apart from that, as the grandfather of the writ petitioner,
Bagavathiappan, had passed away before the Registration of Births
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 11:15:32 am )
W.P.(MD)Nos.10966 and 10967 of 2025
and Deaths Act, 1969, come into force, which mandates registration of
birth and deaths, the Sub Registrar cannot expect the petitioner to
produce the said certificate.
10.Further more, the purchasers, Alphonse and Julise, have
already purchased the property through an earlier registered deed
dated 04.10.2019 from other family members. The present document
is merely a confirmatory one.
11.In the light of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions
stand allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The respondent
shall register the documents presented by the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.
Index :Yes / No 22.04.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
To
The Sub Registrar,
Kottaram Sub Registrar Office,
Kottaram,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 11:15:32 am )
W.P.(MD)Nos.10966 and 10967 of 2025
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mm
W.P.(MD)Nos.10966 and 10967 of 2025
22.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/05/2025 11:15:32 am )
