Allowed

Solaimalai v. The Joint Sub Registrar - I

Madras HC13 Aug 2024WP(MD)/13492/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a settlement deed due to the non-production of original title documents. Relying on prior precedents establishing that original documents are not statutorily required for registration, the court quashed the refusal slip and directed registration within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the refusal check slip dated 13.06.2022 and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the settlement deed within fifteen days.

Solaimalai Vs The Joint Sub Registrar - I — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13492 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13492 of 2022

Solaimalai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Sub Registrar-I, Sivagangai, (Registration Department) Sivagangai District.

¶11

Govindan

¶12

Karuppiayee

¶13

Thiruvettai Chellamani ... Respondents

¶14

(R2 to R4 are impleaded vide Court order dated 03.08.2022 in WMP(MD)No.12582/2022 in WP(MD)No.13492/2022 by GRSJ)

¶15

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶16

to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check slip Number: RFL/1 Joint Sub Registrar, Sivagangai/7/2022 dated 13.06.2022 issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register the settlement deed dated 13.06.2022 presented by

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.13492 of 2022

¶20

the petitioner without insisting production of original title documents.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kumaraguru For R1 : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate For R2 to R4 : No appearance

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/1 Joint Sub Registrar, Sivagangai/7/2022 dated 13.06.2022 and consequently direct the first respondent to register the settlement deed dated 13.06.2022 presented by the petitioner without insisting the production of the original title documents.

¶24

Heard both sides.

¶25

3.The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner

¶26

presented a settlement deed in favour of his son, namely, Thiruvettai Kannan before the first respondent, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that the original title deed has not been produced. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶27

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

¶28

2/5

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.13492 of 2022

¶30

The issue in the present case is no longer a res integra in

¶31

view of the earlier order passed by this Court in the case of Federal Bank v. Sub Registrar , reported in 2023 (2) CTC 289 wherein it is held that Sub Rule XX of Rule 162 has no statutory backing. The said order

¶32

has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Ariyanatchi v. Inspector General made in W.A.(MD).No.856 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023, wherein, Division Bench of this Court has held that, for instance, the original document is held by one co-owner, the Sub-Registrar can always take an undertaking or a declaration in the form of an affidavit from the vendors to the effect that the original document is with the said person and register the document. Hence, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a document merely because the original parent deed has not been produced. In such view of the matter, the impugned refusal slip has to be set aside.

¶33

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned

¶34

refusal slip of the first respondent 13.06.2022 stands quashed and the first respondent is directed to register the settlement deed dated 13.06.2022 presented by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days

¶35

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

¶36

3/5

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.13492 of 2022

¶38

from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.

¶39

13.08.2024

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No PJL

¶41

To The Joint Sub Registrar-I, Sivagangai (Registration Department), Sivagangai District.

¶42

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

¶43

4/5

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.13492 of 2022

¶45

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

¶46

PJL

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.13492 of 2022

¶48

13.08.2024

¶49

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

¶50

5/5

Solaimalai v. The Joint Sub Registrar - I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solaimalai v. The Joint Sub Registrar - I

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

D.Michael Raj Vs the District Registrar

K.Sivasamy, S/O.Late.Kandasamy Vs the District Registrar

Arulraj Vs the District Registrar

Kanagasabai Vs The Secretary to Government

Elango. a Vs The Sub Registrar

Muthu @ Periamuthu.a Vs The District Registrar