Allowed

N.Balamurugan v. the District Registrar

Madras HC28 Aug 2024WP(MD)/16951/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's sale deeds were refused registration by the Sub-Registrar on grounds of survey number mismatch and unspecified encumbrance. The court found encumbrance records showed no entry, noted precedent that such refusals lack statutory backing, quashed the refusal communication, and directed registration of the sale deeds within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 06.07.2019 quashed; 2nd respondent directed to register the sale deeds within fifteen days; no costs.

N.Balamurugan Vs the District Registrar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD). No.16951 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 28/08/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP(MD). No.16951 of 2019

N.Balamurugan

... Petitioner

The District Registrar, Registrar Office,Dindigul..

¶11

The Sub Registrar-1, Registrar Office, Dindigul District..

¶12

3. Mallika,

¶13

The Sub Registrar -1,, Registrar Office, Dindigul District.. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER :-Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the communication issued by the 2^nd Respondent, Sub-Registrar-I, Dindigul dated 06-07-2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd Respondent to register the sale deed dated 04-01-2019 produced by the petitioner in respect of S.No.543/34 measuring 4.88 Ares S.No.543/3F2A1 measuring 1.16 Ares, S.No. 544/1B1A1 measuring 10.53 ares, S.No.544/20 measuring 2.93 ares, S.No.544/4 measuring 14.50 ares, S.No.544/2A1A1A1 measuring 17.45 ares situate in Mullippadi Village, Dindigul East, Dindigul District

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

WP(MD). No.16951 of 2019

¶18

within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner :Mr.D.Saravanan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj for R1 & R2 Special Government Pleader No appearance for R3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenge has been made to the impugned communication of the 2^nd respondent dated 06-07-2019 and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to register the sale deed.

¶23

The petitioner presented four sale deeds dated 04.01.2019 for registration. However, the same have been refused to be registered on the ground that there is no correlation with regard to survey number as per the records and in respect of the old survey number, there are some encumbrance. However, no details whatsoever have been given in the impugned order to the nature of encumbrance.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed the encumbrance from the year 1932 to 2019 in the typed set of papers. A perusal of the same, it shows no encumbrance.

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD). No.16951 of 2019

¶28

It is relevant note that this Court in the case of Federal Bank v Sub Registrar , reported in 2023 (2) CTC 289 has held that Sub Rule XX of Rule 162 has no statutory backing. The said order 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 . It is seen that the present impugned order has been passed without any verification of the records. Hence, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a document without verifying the documents. In such

¶29

view of the matter, the impugned refusal slip has to be set aside.

¶30

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 06.07.2019 is quashed and the 2^nd respondent is directed to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶31

28.08.2024

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

WP(MD). No.16951 of 2019

¶35

¶36

¶37

The District Registrar, Registrar Office,Dindigul..

¶38

The Sub Registrar-1, Registrar Office, Dindigul District..

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

WP(MD). No.16951 of 2019

¶42

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J

¶43

ORDER IN WP(MD) No.16951 of 2019

¶44

Date : 28/08/2024

¶45

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

¶46

5/5

N.Balamurugan v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Balamurugan v. the District 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

Deivanai Achi Vs the District Registrar

M.Rajendran Vs The Sub Registrar

Chellammal Vs The District Registrar (Admin)

Kaviarasan. a Vs The Sub Registrar

V.Packiamurugan Vs The District Registrar

Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam - Therku Chathiram Vs The District Registrar