Allowed

P.Balasubramanian v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC16 Jul 2024WP(MD)/12515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, holding a registered power of attorney from the successful party in a title suit chain culminating in a Supreme Court dismissal, sought registration of the court decrees. The Sub Registrar refused citing Section 33(1)(a) of the Registration Act. The High Court held the requirement was fulfilled since the power was registered where the principal resided, quashed the refusal slip, and al

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip dated 03.06.2024 quashed; petitioner permitted to re-present the court orders before the third respondent for registration.

P.Balasubramanian Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.12515 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12515 of 2024

P.Balasubramanian

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome Road, St.George Ft, Chennai-9.

¶11

2.The District Registrar, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, North Veeravanallur, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents

¶13

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 proceedings of the 3^rd Respondent made in RFL/North Veeravanallur/9/2024 dated 03.06.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to Register the judgment made in SLP(C) No.19658 of 2023 dated 12.01.2024 on the file of the Honourable Supreme Court in confirming the orders passed in S.A.(MD).No.206 of 2016 dated 13.02.2023 by this Court in confirming A.S.No.67 of 2015 dated

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P(MD)No.12515 of 2024

¶17

13.07.2016 by the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli and Decree and Judgment of O.S.No.69 of 2011 dated 15.04.2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamuthram.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

The petitioner wants to register the petition mentioned court orders. Citing Section 33(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, registration was refused. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶23

It is seen that one Arunsankar Karunanithi filed O.S.No.69 of 2011 against one Muthulakshmi and another for the relief of declaration. The suit was dismissed on 15.04.2015. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No. 67 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. The appeal was also dismissed on 13.07.2016. S.A.(MD)No.706 of 2016 was dismissed on 13.02.2023. S.L.P.No.19658 of 2023 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.01.2024. Muthulakshmi / successful party executed the registered power of attorney dated 22.05.2024 in favour of the petitioner. It was

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.12515 of 2024

¶27

registered as Document No.99 of 2024. On the strength of this power of attorney, the petitioner filed the petition mentioned Court orders. Section 33(1) (a) of the Act reads as follows:-

¶28

“33. Power-of-attorney recognisable for purposes of section 32.—

¶29

(1) For the purposes of section 32, the following powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognized, namely:—

¶30

(a) if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of 1 [India] in which this Act is for the time being in force, a powerof-attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the principal resides; ”

¶31

Muthulakshmi is presently residing in T.Nagar. The power of attorney

¶32

was registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar. Thus, the requirement set out in Section 33(1)(a) is more than fulfilled. The stand of the third respondent is patently un-acceptable. The petitioner is definitely competent to present the document for registration in his capacity as power of attorney. In view of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act, the impugned refusal check slip is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the document before the third respondent. It shall be registered. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶33

16.07.2024

¶34

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 23.07.2024

¶35

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

¶36

3/4

¶37

W.P(MD)No.12515 of 2024

¶38

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶39

rmi

¶40

¶41

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome Road, St.George Ft, Chennai-9.

¶42

2.The District Registrar, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶43

3.The Sub Registrar, North Veeravanallur, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶44

W.P(MD)No.12515 of 2024

¶45

16.07.2024

¶46

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

¶47

4/4

P.Balasubramanian v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Balasubramanian v. The Inspector General of Registration

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

Ananth a Vs The Government of Tamilnadu Rep by

Lakshmanan at Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Ganesan Vs Naganathan

Palaniammal .G Vs The Distrit Collector

V.Santhanabharathi Vs The District collector

M.Manimekalai Vs The Commissioner