Allowed

Valli v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC2 Mar 2023WP(MD)/1613/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal to register a gift deed due to absence of original parent document. Court held registration authority cannot refuse registration for lack of original deed and directed respondent to register document if petitioner complies with statutory forms and undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip quashed. Respondent directed to register the document on re-presentation if petitioner adheres to amended Rule 55A and includes requisite recitals.

Valli Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1613 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1613 of 2023

¶7

Valli ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar Office, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent

¶9

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 pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Devakottai/28/2022, dated 20.10.2022 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to register the document without insisting for the production of original parent document within a time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶13

W.P(MD)No.1613 of 2023

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

The petitioner's father had executed the petition mentioned gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. It was presented for registration. On account of non-submission of the parent deed in original, the document was not entertained and instead, the impugned refusal check slip was issued. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶17

It has been held in more than one decision that the registering authority cannot refuse the registration of the document for non-production of the original parent deed.

¶18

My attention is drawn to the order dated 28.07.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.19832 of 2021 (Palanisamy Vs The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar

¶19

Office, Keranur, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District) . Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the said order read as follows:

¶20

“7. It is true that the stand of the writ petitioner is that he had lost the original document No.296 of 1989 and that he is not in a position to produce the certified copy. It has been held by a

¶21

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

¶22

2/4

¶23

W.P(MD)No.1613 of 2023

¶24

learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020 vide order dated 11.02.2021 (Sivanadiyan V. The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai District) that the registering authority cannot insist on production of the original title deed. It is also seen that the petitioner's name has been entered in the revenue record. The petitioner through his counsel gives an undertaking that in the document proposed to be registered, he would include the recital stating that he had lost the original settlement deed dated 24.05.1989 and that the same has not been mortgaged or deposited by way of security and that there is no encumbrance on the property. The undertaking given by the petitioner is recorded.

¶25

8. The petitioner is ready to produce the original patta. Since the petitioner is ready to comply with the statutory mandate set out in the Patta Passbook Act and in view of the undertaking given before me, the impugned refusal check slip is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to represent the document by including the aforementioned recital. The respondent shall receive the document in question and register the same and release it subject to usual formalities. This writ petition stands allowed. No costs.”

¶26

The petitioner is ready to re-present the document by adhering to the procedure indicated in the aforesaid Paragraph Nos.7 and 8.

¶27

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

¶28

3/4

¶29

W.P(MD)No.1613 of 2023

¶30

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶31

rmi

¶32

The learned Additional Government Pleader drew my attention to the amended Rule 55A of the Registration Rules. The petitioner has to necessarily adhere to these requirements also. Subject to the petitioner fulfilling the aforesaid requirements, the respondent shall register the document on it being re-presented. The petitioner of course has to fulfil the other usual formalities also.

¶33

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No costs.

¶34

02.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶35

¶36

The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar Office, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

¶37

W.P(MD)No.1613 of 2023

¶38

02.03.2023

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

Valli v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valli 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A 1303 Madurai Mills Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs The District Collector

Rajeshwaran Vs The Tahsildar

Viyakula Arpudha Latha Vs The Tahsildar

Chellam .C Vs The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department

Rabiath Basariya .a Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Sathappa Chindambaram. U Vs The Commissioner