Allowed

S.v.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC9 Aug 2021WP/2843/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Writ Petition in habeas corpus nature (Article 226) where the Sub Registrar refused to register a settlement deed over Gramanatham land. The Court quashed the refusal and directed the Respondent to register the deed and release it upon payment of stamp duties.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Refusal slip quashed; Respondent directed to register settlement deed dated 12.01.2021 and release it immediately upon payment of stamp/registration fees.

S.v.Manimegalai Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.2843 of 2021

¶6

S.V.Manimegalai .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Sub Registrar, Pammal, Chennai-75. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to receive and register the settlement deed dated 12.01.2021 executed by the petitioner in favour her daughter in TP/99165716/2021 in respect of Gramanatham S.No.309/3-2849 sq.ft at door No.29, Thiruneermalai Road, Anakaputhur village, Pammal Sub Registration District, South Chennai registration district, and to release the same to the petitioner forthwith.

¶10

The petitioner herein had presented a settlement deed dated 12.01.2021 executed by her in favour of her daughter with respect to Gramanatham S.No.309/3 admeasuring 2849 sq.ft in Door No.29, Thiruneermalai Road, Anakaputhur Village before the Sub Registrar, Pammal.

¶11

According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the said land and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than forty years. It is claimed that the land being Gramanatham, the Government has no right over the property and it is a house site. She has got electricity connection and also ration card was issued. She had executed a settlement deed of the said property in favour of her daughter and when the same was presented before the respondent for registration, the respondent viz., The Sub-Registrar, Pammal, had refused to

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a earlier writ petition in W.P.No.18090 of 2020 in the case of P.Devaraj Vs.The Sub Registrar, Pammal, order dated 11.10.2020. In the said order, a learned single Judge had relied on an earlier order dated 29.07.2020 passed in W.P.No.2023 of 2020. The relevant portions of the order has been extracted therein and the very same is extracted hereunder:

¶15

“5. In a case of similar nature, this Court passed an order in W.P.No.14682 of 2016 dated 21.04.2016. The relevant portion in the order is extracted hereunder:

¶16

"(2.1) The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the properties mentioned above and they are the Gramanatham house sites.

¶17

(2.2) According to him, the gramanatham property is not a property of the Government and it cannot be classified as Government property. A poor villager, who is residing in Gramanatham sites for quite a long time, acquires right, title and interest over the same. The question of grant of patta in Gramanatham property does not arise at all,as the Government has no control or jurisdiction over the said property.

¶18

(2.3) The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in question for more than six decades in Gramanatham house sites. The petitioner has also paid the property tax.

¶19

(2.4) The petitioner executed a Settlement Deed on 15.4.2016,settling the property in favour of his wife and two sons. When the petitioner has approached the respondent for registration of the same, it was returned by the respondent for extraneous consideration. According to him, such documents ares being registered continuously by the registration department and the petitioner alone is singled out and discriminated.

¶20

(2.5) In similar circumstances in respect of a Gramanatham property, this Court in Writ Petition No.16521 of 2015 vide order dated 1.9.2015 directed the concerned Sub Registrar to receive and register the settlement deed executed by the petitioner therein.

¶21

(2.6) Even after production of the said order, the respondent has not registered his document, but directed him to produce a similar order from this Court. Hence, having no other option, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

¶22

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government

¶23

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

¶24

Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶25

4.A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner executed a Settlement Deed dated 15.4.2016 in favour of his wife and two sons, but the said document was not registered. The respondent refused to receive and register the document.

¶26

5.When the matter was taken up for consideration, it is brought to my knowledge that in similar circumstances, this Court passed an order in W.P.No.16521 of 2014 dated 1.9.2015 on the following lines:

¶27

"2. The law is quite settled that the gramanatham is not a Government poromboke land. The certificate issued by the V.A.O.shows that house has been constructed over the said land. what the petitioner has conveyed is a settlement by him to his son. The respondent cannot delve much into the title as a mere registration will not give such status.

¶28

In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to receive and register the document to be produced by the petitioner subject to the payment of requisite stamp duty. No costs."

¶29

Therefore, in my considered opinion, if the properties mentioned in the schedule of the Settlement Deed dated 15.4.2016 executed by the petitioner are found to be Gramanatham properties, the respondent is duty bound to receive and register the same. Hence, the respondent is directed to receive the document, viz., settlement deed dated 15.04.2016 presented by him in respect of the properties in Natham S No.1351/ 1B - out of 2.05.0 hectare 304 sq.mts (2,276 Sq.ft), Door No.2/74, Uthukattamman Koil Street, Chinnama Nagar, Thaiyur B Village, Tiruporur Taluk , Kanchipuram District and register the same, if the same are found to be Gramanatham properties, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs."

¶30

The above order will also squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

¶31

In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the refusal slip and accordingly the same is quashed. The respondent is

¶32

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

¶33

directed to receive the settlement deed from the petitioner and register the same, if it is otherwise in order and thereafter, release the document to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall pay the necessary stamp duty and registration charges.”

¶34

4.The above order will squarely apply to the present facts of the case. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 30.09.2020, if it is otherwise in order and subject to the petitioner paying the necessary stamp duty and registration fee, if any. The document shall be immediately released to the petitioner after it is registered.”

¶35

The ratio will squarely apply to the present case also. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondent to register the settlement deed executed by the petitioner herein in favour of her daughter on 12.01.2021, if it is otherwise in order, subject to the petitioner paying the necessary stamp duty and registration fee. On registration of the settlement deed, the respondent is directed to release the document immediately.

¶36

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

¶43

The Sub Registrar, Pammal, Chennai-75.

¶44

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.39768

¶45

W.P.No.2843 of 2021

¶46

SSV(CO) CT(13/09/2021)

¶47

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

S.v.Manimegalai v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.v.Manimegalai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Varadharajan Vs The Tahsildar

Rajarajan Somasundaram Vs The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)

V.Manjunathan Vs Commercial Taxes and Registration Department

Mrs.Reshma Malliknath, Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Selvaraju Vs The Inspector General of Registration

M.Elavarasi Vs The Secretary