Allowed

Palanichamy v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC22 Aug 2024WP(MD)/22899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed a refusal check slip issued by a Joint Sub Registrar regarding the registration of a settlement deed. The Court directed the Registrar to register the deed, holding that original title deeds need not be produced and the Registrar cannot decide title disputes or demand excessive historical documents without issue.

What did the court decide?

The impugned refusal check slip dated 25.08.2022 was quashed and the second respondent was directed to register the settlement deed dated 07.07.2022.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.22899 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.22899 of 2022

Palanichamy

... Petitioner

versus

The Inspector General of Registration, Door No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.

¶11

The Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Tenkasi. .... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL / Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Tenkasi / 66 / 2022 dated 25.08.2022 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, directing him to register the settlement deed dated 07.07.2022 executed by the petitioner in favour of his daughter.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.22899 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent, in RFL / Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Tenkasi / 66 / 2022 dated 25.08.2022, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to register the settlement deed dated 07.07.2022 executed by the petitioner in favour of his daughter.

¶19

The petitioner claims that he has executed a settlement deed dated 07.07.2022 in favour of his daughter. When he presented the settlement deed, dated 07.07.2022, before the second respondent, the same was not registered by the second respondent on the grounds that the original partition deed has not been produced; that no partition was effected among the legal heirs of the petitioner's father; that the suit filed for partition in O.S.No.94 of 2005 has not been decreed and that the encumbrance certificate has not been produced from the year 1969. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

When other legal heirs have no issue with the regard to the execution of partition deed and the suit filed by other legal heirs came to be dismissed for

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.22899 of 2022

¶24

default and that has not been restored thereafter and they have no objection in this regard, the second respondent cannot step into the shoes of other co-owners. Further, the second respondent cannot decide the rights of parties, particularly, when there is no issue raised in front of him.

¶25

As far as the parent title deed and partition deed are concerned, n ormally, the original deeds will be in the custody of elder members of the family and certified copies of the deeds will be in the custody of other co-owners. Therefore, insisting on original parent title deeds has been deprecated by this Court.

¶26

5. This Court, in The Federal Bank Limited v. Sub-Registrar, Pollachi & Others , in W.P.No.2758 of 2023, dated 08.02.2023, held that insisting on original document is not at all required any further. Therefore, the act of the second respondent in refusing to register the settlement deed executed by the petitioner is not correct.

¶27

6. Further, insisting on encumbrance certificate from the year 1969 from

¶28

the petitioner itself is nothing but clear abuse of process of law. If at all the

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.22899 of 2022

¶32

second respondent wants to verify the documents, he can verify the same with their own records instead of insisting on the parties to produce encumbrance certificate for several years. That apart, the suit filed for partition has not been decreed is not the concern of the Sub Registrar.

¶33

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying his

¶34

action. However, this Court is of the view that the Sub Registrar cannot assume the role of a Civil Court and also cannot enter into the title dispute.

¶35

Therefore, the impugned refusal check slip dated 25.08.2022 issued by the second respondent is quashed and the second respondent is directed to register the settlement deed dated 07.07.2022 executed by the petitioner in favour of his daughter, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶37

22.08.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No. ogy

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.22899 of 2022

¶42

¶43

The Inspector General of Registration, Door No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.

¶44

The Joint Sub Registrar No.2, Tenkasi.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.22899 of 2022

¶48

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶49

ogy

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.22899 of 2022

¶51

22.08.2024

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

Palanichamy v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanichamy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravikumar.S Vs The District Revenue Officer

Subramaniyan .v Vs The Inspector General of Registration

H.M.Ahamed Abdul Cader Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Alagiri Balan .C Vs The District Registrar (Administration)

Vennila Vs The Inspector General of Registrar

Santhoshkumar.I.K Vs The District Registrar