Allowed

Sankaran v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC5 Oct 2023WP(MD)/462/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed a refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar for failing to produce an original settlement deed, relying on precedent that original parent documents are not mandatory for verification. The court ordered the petitioner to re-present the document for registration.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned Refusal Check Slip and permission to re-present the document for registration.

Sankaran Vs the Sub Registrar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.462 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.462 of 2022

Sankaran

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent

¶11

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 of the impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number RFL/Ambasamudram/27/2021 dated 10.11.2021 passed by the Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and further direct the Respondent herein to register and release the document bearing temporary No.TP/106846474/2021 dated 10.11.2021 in the light of the order passed in K.S.Vijayandran -Vs- I.G. of Registration reported in 2011 (2) LW 648, within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : no appearance

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P(MD)No.462 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

None appears for the petitioner.

¶19

The counsel who filed the writ petition is said to have returned the

¶20

papers.

¶21

I went through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is seen that the petitioner presented the petition mentioned settlement deed for registration. The respondent returned the document and issued the impugned

¶22

refusal check slip. The reason set out therein is that the petitioner failed to produce the parent document for verification. It has been held in the decision reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526 (Sivanadiyan Vs. I.G of Registration) that the registering authority cannot insist on production of the original parent document.

¶23

Respectfully applying the said decision, the impugned refusal check slip is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the document for

¶24

registration. The respondent will receive the same and register it subject to fulfilment of other usual formalities.

¶25

The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶26

05.10.2023

¶27

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶28

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

¶29

2/4

¶30

W.P(MD)No.462 of 2022

¶31

¶32

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

W.P(MD)No.462 of 2022

¶36

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶37

rmi

¶38

W.P(MD)No.462 of 2022

¶39

05.10.2023

¶40

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

Sankaran v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivanandy. S.R Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Karuppasamy.M Vs the District Registrar

S.Hidayadulla Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Sundarasu Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Kasinathan Vs the Superintending Engineer

Manickam N Vs the Superintendent Engineer