Allowed

G.Srikumar v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC16 Oct 2020WP/15088/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the refusal by the Sub Registrar to register sale documents due to an objection raised by a temple executive. The Court allowed the petition by holding that the Sub Registrar must adhere to prior Division Bench directions rather than mechanically rejecting documents.

What did the court decide?

The Refusal Check Slip issued by the Sub Registrar is set aside and the petitioner directed to re-submit the document for registration.

G.Srikumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :16.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.15088 of 2020

¶6

G.Srikumar .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Nallur,
Thiruppur District.
3. The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Visweswara Swamy, Visalakshi Amman &
Subramaniswamy Temples,
Nallur, Tiruppur Taluk and District ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent herein to admit and register Agreement for Sale /Sale Deed to be executed by the petitioner herein in favour of the proposed purchaser/s or settlement in favour of the petitioner's family members, with respect to Plot No,11 Part and Plot No.12 both totally measuring an extent of 2520 Sq.ft in the layout comprised in S.Nos.671/1-12 Part, bearing Joint patta Nos.1963 & 1942 Amarjothi Garden, AS Nagar, Kangeyam Road, Tiruppur – 611 605.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.Karthikeyan learned counsel for R3

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to admit and register the documents presented by the petitioner with respect to the subject property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent is refusing to accept documents on the ground that an objection has been raised by the 3^rd respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the 2^nd respondent cannot refuse to admit document merely on receipt of any objection and the 2^nd respondent will have to follow the procedure as directed by the Hon'ble Division bench of this Court and take a decision in accordance with law. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the earlier order passed by this Court in WP No.29842 of 2019 dated 13.07.2020. The learned counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that similar directions can be issued in the present writ petition also.

¶13

Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 2^nd respondent will comply with the directions issued by this Court and take a decision in accordance with law.

¶14

The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier order passed by this Court in WP No.29842 of 2019 dated 13.07.2020. The relevant portions in the order is extracted hereunder :-

¶15

The issue that has been raised in the present writ petition is no longer res-integra and this Court has been repeatedly directing the office of the SubRegistrar to follow the directions issued by the Division Bench and inspite of the same, it is found that documents are being returned back with a Refusal Check Slip in every case. Every time, the aggrieved executant of the document are forced to approach of this Court, challenging the Refusal Check Slip and every time this Court is reiterating and directing the concerned Sub-Registrar are either unaware of the directions given by the Division Bench or they are mechanically refusing registration without taking into account the judgment of the Division Bench.

¶16

This is yet another case where Refusal Check Slip has been issued in a mechanical fashion without following the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

In view of the above, the Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to re-submit the document to the second respondent. On such resubmission, the second respondent is directed to follow the direction given by the Division Bench scrupulously and thereafter take a decision with regard to the registration of the document.

¶19

In view of the above, this Writ petition is allowed in term of the above order. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rka
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Nallur,
Thiruppur District.
3. The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Visweswara Swamy, Visalakshi Amman &
Subramaniswamy Temples,
Nallur, Tiruppur Taluk and District

¶21

+1 cc to The Government Pleader, Sr.No. 34787

¶22

W.P.No.15088 of 2020 RR(CO) RMP(23/11/2020)

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Srikumar v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Srikumar v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Southern Railway Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director

Karupannan, Vs The Town and Country Planning Office

S.Dhamodaran aged about 54 years Vs The District Collector

Mohammed Elias Vs The Chairman

S.Sivaraj Vs The Member Secretary

S.Saravanan Vs Thiru. Dhanasekaran