Madras High Court
K.Edward vs The District Registrar on 13 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.6738 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.6738 of 2025
K.Edward ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Sub-Registrar,
Rajapalayam, to register the sale deed or such other documents executed
by the petitioner or any other lawful transaction concerning the property,
being presented by the petitioner in respect of the property situated at
S.No.1989/2 measuring 1 acre 4 cents and S.No.1987/2 measuring 7
cents in Ayankollangkonda-2 Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar
District, without insisting on the original parent document or a Not
Traceable Certificate, in accordance with law within a time frame as may
be fixed by this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:53 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.6738 of 2025
For Petitioner :Mr.Y.Prakash
For Respondents :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
The petitioner states that he purchased the property situated in
S.No.1989/2 to an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents and S.No.1987/2
measuring 17 cents of Ayankollangkondan-2 Village, Rajapalayam Taluk,
Virudhunagar District, from one Muthu. The purchase was made by way
of a registered document in Doc.No.1157/1992, dated 27.04.1992. On
the basis of the purchase, the petitioner has also mutated the revenue
records and has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.
2. The petitioner pleads on 01.06.2014, while taking copies of the
sale deed, he misplaced the same. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with
the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, intimating
him regarding the loss of the document. This complaint was received as
petition No. 178 of 2014 on 09.06.2014. A 'Non Traceable' Certificate
had not been issued by the police so far.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:53 pm )
3. With the passage of time, the petitioner wanted to alienate his
property. One Dr.Meena, W/o.Dr.Tamilarasan approached the petitioner
to purchase the same. When they submitted a draft sale deed for
registration to the second respondent, he refused to receive the same on
the ground that the original parent document has not been produced. He
gave an option to the petitioner to produce a 'Non Traceable' Certificate
from the police and thereafter, present the document for registration.
4. The petitioner informed to the Sub-Registrar that there is no
necessity to produce the original parent document at the time of
registration. He relied upon a verdict of this Court in order to
substantiate the said plea. This fervent plea of the petitioner fell on deaf
ears. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ
petition.
5. I heard Mr.Y.Prakash for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:53 pm )
6. Mr.Y.Prakash reiterated the contentions made in the affidavit
and pleaded that the mandamus be issued to the respondents to receive
the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Dr.Meena without
insisting upon the production of the original.
7. Per contra, Mr.R.Sureshkumar urged that 'Non Traceable'
Certificate had not been issued and therefore, the second respondent
entertained a doubt with regards to the registration of the document. He
states that he has been instructed by the Sub-Registrar to the effect that
the Sub-Registrar is merely following the verdict of this Court in the case
of S.Palanivel Vs. Sub-Registrar in W.P.No.32296 of 2024, dated
29.10.2024. According to the Sub-Registrar, since this Court had
directed the petitioner in that case to file an affidavit narrating the
circumstances of his failure to produce the original document following
it up with the newspaper advertisement, prior to registration, he pleads
that the same procedure may be followed in the present case also.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:53 pm )
9. The position of law has been settled by a judgment of this Court
in P.Pappu Vs., The Sub Registrar, 2024 (5) CTC 575. In the said
judgment, a Division Bench of this Court had directed that the Sub-
Registrar has no jurisdiction to insist on production of an original
document, as a condition for registration. It was further pointed out that
refusal to register the document for non-production of a original
document violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300 A
of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said order, the registration
department had taken the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court by way
of a Special Leave Petition. The said Special Leave Petition has been
dismissed on 03.02.2025. Therefore, as on today, the law as declared by
this Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court is that there is no
necessity to produce the original document at the time of registration.
10. The observations that were made by this Court in S.Palanivel's
case, were for the circumstance which arose to the facts of that case.
This is clear from paragraph No.9 of the order, wherein, the learned
Judge had asked the petitioner therein to file an affidavit. He did not
give a general direction that in all cases such an affidavit must be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:53 pm )
11. In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a mandamus
in favour of the petitioner directing the second respondent to receive the
sale deed presented by the petitioner in favour of Dr.Meena without
insisting upon the original of the parent document and register the same.
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two(2) weeks
from today i.e., 13.03.2025.
12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is ordered. No
costs.
13. Post 'for reporting compliance' on 03.04.2025.
Index :Yes / No 13.03.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Rmk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:53 pm )
To
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:53 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
13.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 06:19:53 pm )
