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: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 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 that on 01.06.2014, while taking copies of
the original 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.
However, a 'Non Traceable' Certificate had not been issued by the police
so far, and the petitioner did not request one, as he was unaware of the
requirement of such a certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 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 or a 'Nor Traceable
Certificate' 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: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 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 parent document, or
alternatively, a 'Non Traceable Certificate'.
7. Per contra, Mr.R.Sureshkumar urged that the 'Non Traceable'
Certificate had not been issued and therefore, the second respondent
entertained doubt regarding 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.
8. 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, followed by a newspaper
advertisement, prior to registration, he pleads that the same procedure
may be followed in the present case as well.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
9. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.
10. 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.
11. It was further pointed out that refusal to register the document
due to the non-production of the original document violates the
constitutional right to property under Article 300 A of the Constitution of
India.
12. Aggrieved by the said order, the registration department had
taken the matter on appeal before the Supreme Court by way of a Special
Leave Petition. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on
03.02.2025. Therefore, as of 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
13. The observations that were made by this Court in S.Palanivel's
case, were specific to the circumstances which arose from 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.
However, he did not give a general direction that in all cases such an
affidavit must be filed.
14. 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 or a 'Non Traceable
Certificate' and register the same. The said exercise shall be completed
within a period of two (2) weeks from today i.e., 13.03.2025.
15. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is ordered. No
costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
16. Post 'for reporting compliance' on 03.04.2025.
Index :Yes / No 13.03.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Rmk
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: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
13.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:08:00 pm )
