Sub Registrar refused registration citing Rule 55 A(i), demanding original deeds. Relying on prior decisions and their confirmation by the Supreme Court, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed registration of the document, without prejudice to a pending Supreme Court challenge to Rule 55 A(i).
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.3858 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.3858 of 2025
Kannan
... Petitioner
Vs.
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 impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Thisaiyanvillai/26/2024 dated 04.12.2024 (impugned order) of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the cancellation of the settlement deed dated
___________Page 1 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3858 of 2025
04.12.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthu Malai Raja For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate For Respondent 3 : Mr.Gnana Sekaran Government Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Thisaiyanvillai/26/2024 dated 04.12.2024 of the 2nd respondent and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to register the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 04.12.2024.
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.
___________Page 2 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3858 of 2025
3. I heard Mr.S.Muthu Malai Raja for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.
4. I pointed out to the learned Government Advocate 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 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.
___________Page 3 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3858 of 2025
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 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
___________Page 4 of 6
W.P.(MD) No.3858 of 2025
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.3858 of 2025
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
MAC
To
W.P.(MD)No.3858 of 2025
Dated : 20.02.2025
___________Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Can the Sub Registrar refuse registration of a document for want of original/parent deeds under Rule 55 A(i)?
Should the refusal check slip be quashed and cancellation of settlement deed registered?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sub Registrar, Pollachi and othersRelied on¶4
2023 (2) CTC 289
P.Pappu Vs. Sub Registrar, RasipuramRelied on¶4
2024 (5) CTC 575
S.L.P (Civil) No.2344 of 2025Referred¶6
S.L.P.No.12167 of 2024Referred¶7
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kannan
The District Registrar, Tirunelveli
The Sub-Registrar, Thisaiyanvillai
The Inspector of Police, Thisaiyanvillai Police Station
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
