Allowed

Muthumuneswarapandian v. The District Registrar

Madras HC20 Feb 2025WP(MD)/3353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition against refusal by a Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed unless original/parent deeds were produced under Rule 55 A(i). Citing prior rulings that originals need not be insisted upon, and noting the Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, the court allowed the petition and directed registration.

What did the court decide?

Refusal Check Slip quashed; Sub-Registrar directed to register the sale deed document upon presentation.

Muthumuneswarapandian Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3353 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.[MD]No.3353 of 2025

¶7

Muthumuneswarapandian ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Registrar, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶10

The Sub-Registrar, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip by its Refusal No. RFL/Aruppukottai/7/2025 issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 01.02.2025 and quash the same as unlawful and unsustainable consequently directing the 2^nd respondent to register the sale deed document dated 01.02.2025 as and when the same is presented by the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam

¶14

Government Advocate

¶15

___________Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.3353 of 2025

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Refusal Check Slip by its Refusal No. RFL/Aruppukottai/7/2025 issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 01.02.2025 and consequently, to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the sale deed document dated 01.02.2025 as and when the same is presented by the petitioner.

¶20

2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property. Pursuant to the exercise of ownership, a document was presented to the Sub Registrar for the purpose of registration. The Sub Registrar invoking Rule 55 A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules sought the production of the original / parent deeds and consequently refused to register the document. Hence, this writ petition.

¶21

3. I heard Mr.R.Karunanidhi for the petitioner and learned

¶22

Advocate General for MrN.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶23

4. I pointed out to the learned Government Advocate that a learned

¶24

___________Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.3353 of 2025

¶27

Single Judge of this Court in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sub Registrar, Pollachi and others [ 2023 (2) CTC 289) as well as the Division Bench of this Court in P.Pappu Vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram [2024 (5) CTC 575], have given directions to the Sub Registrars not to insist upon the production of the original as a condition precedent for registration of the documents.

¶28

5. Despite these verdicts, every day this Court is flooded with writs seeking for directions to the Sub Registrars not to insist on production of originals. Hence, I requested the assistance of the learned Advocate General 05.02.2025, to instruct the State of Tamil Nadu to circulate an instruction informing the Sub Registrars that, production of the original of the sale deed is not an essential requirement in terms of the Registration Act.

¶29

6. The learned Advocate General brought to my notice that the State had preferred an appeal by way of Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court against the order passed in P.Pappu's case in S.L.P (Civil) No.2344 of 2025 and that the same had been dismissed by the

¶30

___________Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.3353 of 2025

¶33

Supreme Court on 03.02.2025. He informed this Court that he will give suitable directions to the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department in this regard.

¶34

7. When I took up the matter for hearing today (20.02.2025), the learned Advocate General brought to my notice that the Constitutional validity of Rule 55 A(i) is a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in S.LP.No.12167 of 2024 and that the matter is listed for hearing on 18.03.2025. He fairly submitted that without prejudice to the contentions of State of Tamil Nadu in the said Special Leave Petition, a direction can be given in the writ petition to register the document and to return the same.

¶35

8. The position of law having been settled in P.Pappu' s case and the same having been confirmed by the Supreme Court, the writ petition stands allowed. The Sub Registrar shall register the document, which he has refused to do so under the impugned order.

¶36

9. The request of the learned Advocate General is accepted.

¶37

___________Page 4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.3353 of 2025

¶40

Needless to add, this order will not stand in the way of the Government in respect of the Constitutional validity of Rule 55 A(i) in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court. No costs.

¶41

20.02.2025

¶42

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes MAC

¶43

___________Page 5 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.3353 of 2025

¶46

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.