Allowed

V.P.Petchimuthu v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC4 Sept 2023WP(MD)/21157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to register a settlement deed but the Sub Registrar refused, insisting on original parent documents or a police non-traceable certificate under a circular. Parents claimed originals were untraceable due to senility but not lost. Court allowed the petition and directed registration based on an affidavit regarding the originals.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to register the disputed settlement deed upon obtaining an affidavit from the petitioners regarding the original documents.

V.P.Petchimuthu Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.21157 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.21157 of 2023

¶7

1.V.P.Petchimuthu

¶8

2.P.Nagavalli

¶9

3.P.Ganesan ... Petitioners Vs The Sub Registrar, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned refusal check slip No.5 of 2023 signed on 16.08.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 16.08.2023 executed by the petitioners 1 and 2 in favour of the 3^rd petitioner without insisting the production of original of the parent documents within the time fixed by this Court.

¶11

For petitioners : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.M.Sarangan,

¶13

Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

3 rd

¶18

WP(MD)No.21157 of 2023

¶19

The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners / the parents of the

¶20

3^rd petitioner have proposed to settle the properties

¶21

in his favour, which they have purchased by way of registered documents in the years 2000 and 2003 respectively and they have executed a settlement deed in favour of the 3^rd petitioner on 16.08.2023.

¶22

The settlement deed was not accepted by the respondent by referring the circular issued in Circular No.25600/C1/2018, dated 02.11.2018,

¶23

insisting the petitioners to produce the original documents pertaining to the years 2000 and 2003 respectively. Aggrieved over the same this writ petition is filed.

¶24

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that one property was purchased by the 2^nd petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 10.07.2000 vide document No.3655 of 2000 and the other property was purchased by the 1^st petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 21.04.2003 vide document No.2026 of 2003. Due to their senility they are not in a position to recollect where the original documents

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD)No.21157 of 2023

¶28

are safeguarded, however, despite their best efforts,

¶29

it is untracable. The original documents are neither lost nor stolen by anyone. Therefore, they have not preferred any complaint in this regard before the police. While so the respondent has refused to register the document, by referring to the above circular, which insists for production of original documents. The respondent as an alternate, has suggested to obtain a non-traceable certificate by lodging a complaint before the police and to produce the same. Though they have not lost the original documents, as suggested in the impugned order, they have also lodged a complaint before the police concerned, but they could not get the non-tracable certificate. While being so, the petitioners are prepared to file an affidavit to that effect before the respondent.

¶30

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the registering authority has to follow the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration vide

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

WP(MD)No.21157 of 2023

¶34

Circular No.25600/C1/2018, dated 02.11.2018 and based

¶35

on that circular the original documents have to be produced at the relevant point of time. If the original documents are not produced, a non-treacable certificate issued by the Police in respect of the original documents has to be produced for registering the document.

¶36

4.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶37

5.The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners are the parents of the 3^rd petitioner and they have proposed to settle their properties in favour of their son / 3^rd petitioner. They claimed that they have purchased the properties by way of registered sale deeds. However, the original documents are not traceable, despite their best efforts. They are also prepared to file an affidavit before the registering authority in respect of the original documents. Therefore, they cannot be compelled to lodge a complaint that the documents are lost and get a non-traceable certificate.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

WP(MD)No.21157 of 2023

¶41

6.In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent to register the document after obtaining an affidavit from the petitioners about the original documents, without insisting for the original documents. No costs.

¶42

04.09.2023

¶43

Internet: Yes / No Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No DSK To The Sub Registrar, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District.

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

WP(MD)No.21157 of 2023

¶47

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶48

dsk

¶49

WP(MD)No.21157 of 2023

¶50

04.09.2023

¶51

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

¶52

6/6

V.P.Petchimuthu v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Petchimuthu 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

T. Saravanan Vs a. Kader Sherif

Ashok Kumar.T Vs the Regional Manager / Authorized Officer

Shajahan.a Vs the District Collector

Tamilarasi Vs The District Collector

Rajkumar.M.K.C Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Muthumeeran.N Vs The Sub Registrar