Allowed

G. Saraswathi v. the Inspector General for Reg

Registration of Sale Deed – Original title deed destroyed by cyclone

Madras HC16 Jul 2024WA/1832/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale deed due to non-production of the original title deed. Holding that the statutory requirement for a non-traceability certificate applies only to lost documents, not those destroyed by natural calamities, the Court allowed the appeal and directed registration upon production of a Tahsild

What did the court decide?

Set aside return check slip and dismissal order; directed Sub-Registrar to register sale deed within 15 days upon production of certified copy of parent title deed and Tahsildar certificate of destruc

G. Saraswathi Vs the Inspector General for Reg — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WA No.1832 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

WA No.1832 of 2024

G.Saraswathi

: Appellant

versus

1.The Inspector General for Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028

¶13

2.The Deputy Registrar General, Deputy Registrar General Office, Thanjavur,

¶14

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar's Office, Nagapattanam : Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ appeal filed against the order in WP No.2428 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024.

¶16

For the Appellant : Mr.D.Padmanabhan

¶17

For the Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal, Additional Government Pleader

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶20

1/7

¶21

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

¶22

WA No.1832 of 2024 The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of her writ petition wherein she had challenged the return check slip issued by the third respondent, refusing to register the sale deed executed by her on 08.11.2023 on the ground that the original title deed relating to the property has not been produced.

¶23

The sale deed in question refers to the parent title deed as Document No.599/1988, the certified copy of which has been produced. The said document is dated 18.03.1988 and has been registered as Doc.No.599/1988. In and by the said instrument, one Govindasamy, S/o Lakshmana Pillai, has purchased an extent of 28 cents of land in S.No.5/5 of Thirupanayur, Vadagarai Revenue Village of Nannilam Taluk. It is averred in the writ petition that the said Govindasami died, leaving behind the vendors under the sale deed dated 08.11.2023. The vendors have conveyed the said extent of 28 cents in S.No.5/5 of Thirupanayur, Vadagarai Revenue Village of Nannilam Taluk, to the appellant. When this sale deed was produced for registration, the Registrar passed the impugned check slip stating that the original of the sale deed dated 18.03.1988 has not been produced. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, requiring the appellant to comply with the formalities that are required to be done under second proviso to Rule 55A of the Registration Rules, introduced on 05.09.2022 and get the document registered.

¶24

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

WA No.1832 of 2024 original document was destroyed during the Gaja cyclone and a certificate to that effect has been issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, viz., Tahsildar, Kudavasal. The said certificate reads as follows:

¶28

““jpUthU:h; khtl;lk; Flthry; tl;lk; Flthry; fpuhkk; mj;jpf;fil vd;w Kfthpapy; trpj;J jw;nghJ ehfg;gl;ozk; khtl;lk; ehfg;gl;ozk; tl;lk; jpUg;giza{h; tlfiu tlf;Fj;bjUtpy; trpj;J tUk; jpU/nfhtpe;jrhkp gps;isfs; 1/Mnrhf;Fkhh; 2/kPdhk;ghs; 3/fhkuh$; kw;Wk; nkw;go nfhtpe;jrhkp kidtp ru!;tjp Mfpnahh; Flthrypy; trpj;J te;j nghJ f$h g[aypy; nfhtpe;jrhkp mth;fs; bgahpy; cs;s Mtzk; kiHapdhy; Kw;wpYkhf nrjkile;Jtpl;lJ vd;gjw;fhf ,e;j rhd;W tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ Mtz vz; 599/1988/”

¶29

In the light of the above certificate, we find that it would be rather unnecessary to seek a non-traceability certificate as provided in the second proviso to Rule 55A of the Registration Rules.

¶30

The relevant proviso to Rule 55A of the Registration Rules reads as under:

¶31

“Provided further that in case the previous original deed is not available as the property being an ancestral one, the registering officer shall not register such document, unless the presentant produce any revenue record evidencing the executant's right over the subject property such as patta copy issued by Revenue Department or tax receipt:

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

WA No.1832 of 2024 Provided also that if the previous original deed is lost, the registering officer shall register such document only on production of non-traceable Certificate issued by the Police department along with the advertisement published in the local Newspaper as to the notice of loss of the previous original deed”.

¶35

The said proviso would apply only in cases were the document is alleged to be lost and not in cases where documents are claimed to have been destroyed or damaged due to natural calamities like flooding or fire accident. If at all the police issue a non-traceability certificate it will necessarily be a false certificate as the revenue official has certified that the original sale deed has been destroyed. Neither a statutory rule nor an order of this court can require a person to produce a false certificate.

¶36

Therefore, we are unable to sustain the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

The return check slip issued by the Registrar as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside.

¶38

The appellant is required to re-present the sale deed for registration within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on 4/7

¶39

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

¶40

WA No.1832 of 2024 such presentation along with certified copy of the sale deed dated 18.03.1988

¶41

and the certificate of the Tahsildar referred to above, the third respondent shall

¶42

¶43

In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to

¶44

costs.

¶45

(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 16.07.2024

¶46

Index : Yes/no tar

¶47

5/7

¶48

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

¶49

WA No.1832 of 2024

¶50

¶51

1.The Inspector General for Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028

¶52

2.The Deputy Registrar General, Deputy Registrar General Office, Thanjavur,

¶53

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar's Office, Nagapattanam

¶54

6/7

¶55

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

¶56

WA No.1832 of 2024 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶57

and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶58

(tar)

¶59

WA No.1832 of 2024

¶60

16.07.2024

¶61

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

¶62

7/7

G. Saraswathi v. the Inspector General for Reg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Saraswathi v. the Inspector General for Reg

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

M.Dhandapani Vs M.Balasubramanian

The Chief Executive Claim Officer Vs Lakshmi Devi

S.Settu Vs Thangammal

Saraswathy Ammal(died), 1.Rajachidambaram Vs the District Collector

Veeramanikandan Vs the Joint Sub Registrar No.I (in Charge)

M/S.Zoho Corporation Private Limited Company Vs the Inspector General of Registration