The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Sub Registrar to register the sale deed. The Court held that production of original documents is not a mandatory requirement for registration, relying on settled law in P.Pappu's case.
The writ petition is allowed. The Sub Registrar is directed to register the document.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.3531 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.3531 of 2025
Xavier
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar, Eraniel SRO, Kanniyakumari District.
... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Refusal Check Slip dated 13.11.2024 made in Refusal No.RFL/Eraniel/188/2024 passed by the Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 13.11.2024 executed by the Petitioner in favour of the purchaser namely Vijayakumari W/o.Gopi in respect of the property comprised in S.No.254/3A measuring to an extent of 2 cents equivalent to 0.810 Ares situated at Aloor Village, Kallkulam Taluk, Eraniel, Kanniyakumari District and presently comes under Ward - I of Nagercoil Corporation by accepting the Registration Copy of the Sale deed dated 16.07.2014 in Doc No.2628/2014 forthwith.
___________Page 1 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3531 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sankarapandian, For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the Refusal Check Slip dated 13.11.2024 made in Refusal No.RFL/Eraniel/188/2024 passed by the respondent and consequently, to direct the respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 13.11.2024 executed by the petitioner in favour of the purchaser namely Vijayakumari, W/o.Gopi in respect of the property comprised in S.No.254/3A measuring to an extent of 2 cents equivalent to 0.810 Ares situated at Aloor Village, Kallkulam Taluk, Eraniel, Kanniyakumari District and presently comes under Ward - I of Nagercoil Corporation by accepting the registration copy of the sale deed dated 16.07.2014 in Doc No.2628/2014 forthwith.
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
___________Page 2 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3531 of 2025
production of the original / parent deeds and consequently refused to register the document. Hence, this writ petition.
3. I heard Mr.J.Sankarapandian, for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
4. I pointed out to the learned Additional Government Pleader that a learned 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.
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 on 05.02.2025, to instruct the State of Tamil Nadu to circulate an
___________Page 3 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3531 of 2025
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.
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 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.
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
___________Page 4 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3531 of 2025
return the same.
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.
9. The request of the learned Advocate General is accepted. 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.
20.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes MAC
___________Page 5 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3531 of 2025
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
MAC
To The Sub Registrar, Eraniel SRO, Kanniyakumari District.
W.P.(MD)No.3531 of 2025
Dated : 20.02.2025
___________Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Sub Registrar can insist on production of original/parent deeds as a condition precedent for registration of documents?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sub Registrar, Pollachi and othersReferred¶25
Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sub Registrar, Pollachi and others [2023 (2) CTC 289]
P.Pappu Vs. Sub Registrar, RasipuramReferred¶25
P.Pappu Vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram [2024 (5) CTC 575]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Xavier
The Sub Registrar, Eraniel SRO, Kanniyakumari District
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. Lakshminarayanan
Parties & counsel
