Allowed

T.M.K.P.Hajara Beevi v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC19 Feb 2020WP(MD)/2657/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to register a sale deed where the original parent release deed was unavailable as it was claimed to have been destroyed. The court held that registration cannot be refused solely due to non-production of the original if the original was destroyed and acceptable reasons are shown.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to register the sale deed in respect of the property conveyed by the unregistered release deed dated 21.03.1984.

T.M.K.P.Hajara Beevi Vs the Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.2657 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR W.P.(MD).No.2657 of 2020

¶3

T.M.K.P.Hajara Beevi .. Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The Sub Registrar, Joint – I Registration Office, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶6

.. Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to register the sale deed by considering the representation, dated 23.01.2020 made by the petitioner.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.RJ.Karthick For Respondent : Mr.M.Murugan

¶9

Government Advocate

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This writ petition is filed for issuing a direction to the respondent to register the sale deed by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 23.01.2020.

¶12

2.It is stated that the property bearing door No.45, 45A in T.M.Building at Tirunelveli Junction belongs to petitioner's father by name T.M.K.Peer Mohamed Rowther. It is further stated that the said property was originally let out to one Thirumalai Kozhundhu Pillaiyan in the year 1984 and that the original release deed in favour of the petitioner, dated 21.03.1984, which was produced before the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.239 of 1984 filed by the tenant for deposit of rent is not traceable. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner and her family members have decided to sell the property. Since the respondent insists production of original release deed, which is registered as document No.386/1984, dated 21.03.1984, the petitioner submitted a representation to register the document and he has also filed an affidavit before the respondent stating that the original release deed, dated 21.03.1984 filed before the Court in relation to the Rent Control proceedings was destroyed by Court. This Court considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

¶13

3.In few other cases, this Court has held that Registering Authority cannot insist production of original for the purpose of registration of the document. There may be several circumstances https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

1/2

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.2657 of 2020

¶16

under which the owner of the property who wants to deal with the property may not be in possession of the original. In those circumstances, original document to show the title of the executor of an instrument may not be available with him. Unless there is reasonable doubt as to the identity of persons executing the document, the production of original document can be dispensed with in cases where there is acceptable reasons for non production. When the release deed of the petitioner who claims title to the property is registered and the Registering Authority has means to have access to the records, this Court is of the view that the document proposed to be executed cannot be refused on the ground of want of original document of prior title, especially when the petitioner has produced records to show that the document is destroyed. However, in the counter affidavit filed in R.C.O.P, it is stated that the release deed was in favour of petitioner and her brother and sister.

¶17

4.Hence, the Registrar is directed to register the sale deed in respect of the property which was conveyed to the petitioner and other by the unregistered release deed, dated 21.03.1984, if the sale deed is other wise validly executed and presented for registration in compliance with all other formalities. It is made clear that on production of sale deed for registration, the Registering Authority may consider the document for registration and shall not refuse to register the document only on the ground that the original or parent document is not produced.

¶18

5.With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶21

TM To

¶22

The Sub Registrar, Joint – I Registration Office, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶23

+1 CC to Mr.R.J.KARTHIK, Advocate ( SR-7135[F] dated 19/02/2020 )

¶24

VB(02.03.2020) 2P 3C

¶25

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

¶26

2/2

T.M.K.P.Hajara Beevi v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.K.P.Hajara Beevi v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lawrence, Vs the District Collector

G.Manimaran Vs the Inspector General of

P.Sornalingam, Vs the District Collector

P.K.Syed Sulaiman Vs the Dist. Collector

Jeyaseelan Thangiah, Vs the Tahsildar

Sugandhi Pandeeswari Vs The District Registrar