Disposed

Ramachandran v. Vs The Sub Registrar

Madras HC17 Nov 2023WP(MD)/14157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition, the petitioner challenged the refusal of registration of an instrument due to non-production of the parent deed in original. The High Court directed the Police to conduct an enquiry and issue a Non Traceable Certificate if the document cannot be traced. Upon submission of the certificate along with other requirements as per Rule 55-A, the document was directed to be registered an

What did the court decide?

Police directed to hold enquiry within 4 weeks and issue Non Traceable Certificate; petitioner to re-submit documents; document to be registered upon compliance.

Ramachandran v Vs The Sub Registrar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.14157 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.14157 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.12002 of 2023

V.Ramachandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Manapparai, Trichy District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned check slip in RFL/Manapparai/66/2023 dated 27.04.2023 issued by the respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to receive the certificate copy of the previous sale deed and register and return the document presented by the petitioner as per the Registration Act 1908, within time frame.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/4

¶15

W.P(MD)No.14157 of 2023

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondent : Mr.M.Prakash Additional Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

The petitioner presented the petition mentioned document for registration before the respondent. Since the parent deed in original was not produced, registration was refused. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶20

Rule 55-A(1) was introduced in the statute book on 05.09.2022.

¶21

The Madras High Court had struck down the first proviso alone. The other parts of the Rule still remain intact.

¶22

It is seen that the petitioner has already lodged complaint before

¶23

the Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station on 22.06.2023. The Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station is directed to hold an

¶24

2/4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P(MD)No.14157 of 2023

¶27

enquiry and issue Non Traceable Certificate within four weeks if enquiry

¶28

discloses that the document cannot be traced. The petitioner is at liberty to re-present the document along with the said Non Traceable Certificate. The other requirements set out in the Rule shall also be complied with. Subject to the petitioner’s fulfilment of the said requirements, the document in question on being re-submitted shall be registered and released.

¶29

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

17.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶31

Note: Issue order copy on 22.11.2023.

¶32

3/4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P(MD)No.14157 of 2023

¶35

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶36

MGA

¶37

¶38

The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Manapparai, Trichy District.

¶39

W.P(MD)No.14157 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.12002 of 2023

¶40

17.11.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/4

Ramachandran v. Vs The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran v. Vs 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

Raju.S Vs The District Collector

Sulaiman Badushah Vs District Sub-registrar

Suresh.K Vs The Director General

Plr and Co. Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Neethi.M Vs The Tahsildar

Bose. Skl Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration