Allowed¶54

Prabhu v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC27 Mar 2025WP(MD)/7033/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal Check Slip; Sub Registrar Vallam; refusal of registration of settlement deed; DVAC/vigilance letter restraining registration; police cannot direct non-registration; attachment orders from competent court; check period 16.05.2011 to 31.03.2016; Crime No. 5 of 2024; original parent deed production not necessary; P.Pappu v. Sub Registrar Rasipuram 2024 (5) CTC 575; R.Madhupriya 2020 SCC Online Madras 20112; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Thanjavur; W.P(MD)No.7033 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal No. RFL/Vallam_Thanjavur/160/2024 dated 18.12.2024 quashed; third respondent/Sub Registrar directed to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner, to be completed within two weeks from uploading of the order; no costs. ¶54

Prabhu Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the Refusal Check Slip dated 18.12.2024 refusing registration of the petitioner's settlement deed on the ground of a DVAC letter is liable to be quashed and registration directed +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The police, including the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, are not empowered by law to issue letters restraining registration of documents; they must approach the jurisdictional court, tribunal or competent authority under the relevant statute to obtain attachment orders, and cannot direct a Sub Registrar not to register a document.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The DVAC never called upon the third respondent not to register the document pertaining to the writ petitioner; it merely asked for details of documents standing in the name of the accused. Hence the second reason in the refusal check slip had to be interfered with.

¶48

Key takeaways

There is no necessity to produce the original of the parent deed at the time of registration, following the Division Bench decision in P.Pappu v. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, whose view found acceptance by the Supreme Court on dismissal of the State's special leave petition; consequently the first reason in the refusal check slip was also unsustainable.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single judge (V. Lakshminarayanan, J.), allowed a writ petition under Article 226 quashing the Sub Registrar, Vallam's Refusal Check Slip dated 18.12.2024 refusing registration of a settlement deed on two grounds: (i) a DVAC letter regarding vigilance enquiry against R. Vaithialingam, and (ii) non-production of the original parent deed. Held: the police/DVAC have no power to issue letters restraining registration and must obtain attachment orders from the competent court/tribunal (following R.Madhupriya v. Inspector General of Registration, 2020 SCC Online Madras 20112); the petitioner's 2009 purchase predated Crime No. 5 of 2024 and fell outside the check period 16.05.2011 to 31.03.2016, and DVAC raised no objection; and, following the Division Bench in P.Pappu v. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, 2024 (5) CTC 575 (SLP by State dismissed by the Supreme Court), production of the original parent deed is unnecessary at registration. Sub Registrar directed to register the deed within two weeks. No costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.7033 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.7033 of 2025

Prabhu

... Petitioner

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

¶11

2.The District Registrar (Admin), O/o District Registrar Thanjavur, Thanjavur.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, O/o Sub Registrar Vallam, Vallam Village, Thanjavur.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police (HQ), DVAC Chennai, No.293, M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records leading to the issuance of the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the 3rd respondent herein vide Refusal No. RFL/Vallam_Thanjavur/160/2024 dated 18.12.2024 and quash the

¶16

1/8

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.7033 of 2025

¶19

same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Tamil Vanan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.R.Sureshkumar Addl. Govt. Pleader (for R1 to R3)

¶22

Mr.M.Karunanithi Govt. Advocate (for R4)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the third respondent vide Refusal No. RFL/Vallam_Thanjavur/160/2024 dated 18.12.2024 and to direct the third respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner within the stipulated time.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property measuring an extent of 2.45 acres comprised in S.Nos. 133/2 & 133/3 situated at Vallam North Sethi Village, Thanjavur Taluk and District. He claims to have purchased the property from one Shezhiyan by way of a registered document in Doc. No.1423/2009 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Vallam. After obtaining prior

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.7033 of 2025

¶29

permission, he laid the property out into plots. He decided to settle the plot Nos.14 to 28 in favour of his brother. Accordingly, a settlement deed was prepared on 18.12.2024, and the same was presented for registration. The third respondent issued the impugned refusal check slip on the ground that the subject matter property is covered by a letter issued by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. In addition, he called upon the petitioner to produce the original document relating to the aforesaid property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶30

Considering the fact that the affidavit discloses that the property is the subject matter of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption enquiry, I directed Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, to take notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate, to take notice for the fourth respondent and to get instructions. I posted the matter today for the respondents to give instructions and for hearing.

¶31

Mr.R. Sureshkumar reports that on account of a letter sent by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the third respondent decided not to proceed further with the registration. He points out that on 07.11.2024, the District Registrar (Admin) had informed all

¶32

3/8

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.7033 of 2025

¶35

the Sub Registrars in Thanjavur, including the third respondent, that Mr.R. Vaithialingam is being enquired by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, and therefore, the Sub Registrars in Thanjavur should send the certified copy of the documents standing in the name of the said individual to the office of the second respondent. Hence, the third respondent had refused to register the same.

¶36

Mr.M.Karunanithi has produced written instructions from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur, dated 27.03.2025. In the said instructions, it is stated that the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had sent a requisition letter to the District Registrar, Thanjavur, to furnish the certified copies of the documents, if any, registered in the name of the accused and his family members during the check period, i.e., 16.05.2011 to 31.03.2016. It is further stated that the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was informed about the property details by the District Registrar, Thanjavur, enclosing certified copies of the documents on 29.11.2024. The instructions state that the purchase made by the writ petitioner is outside the check period. Therefore, no requisition had been sent to the Registration Department seeking to restrain the registration of the property that is the subject matter of the writ petition. The Deputy Superintendent of

¶37

4/8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.7033 of 2025

¶40

Police further instructed that he has no objection for alienation of the property that is the subject matter of this case.

¶41

I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr.A.Tamilvanan for the petitioner, Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 to 3, and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate, for the fourth respondent.

¶42

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had purchased the property in the year 2009, much before the registration of the case in Crime No. 5 of 2024 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Thanjavur. The purchase was made on 12.06.2009, and the check period is from 16.05.2011 to 31.03.2016.

¶43

The police, including the Department of Vigilance and AntiCorruption, are not empowered by law to issue letters restraining the registration of the document. They have to approach the jurisdictional court or tribunal or competent authority under the relevant State or Central statute and obtain the orders for attachment. Therefore, the police cannot issue a letter or communication to a Sub Registrar not to register a document. This position of law has been

¶44

5/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)No.7033 of 2025

¶47

settled by the judgment of this court in R.Madhupriya vs. Inspector General of Registration, 2020 SCC Online Madras 20112 .

¶48

The Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, at no point of time, called upon the third respondent not to register the document pertaining to the writ petitioner, who is the second accused in Crime No. 5 of 2024. It merely asked for details of the documents standing in the name of the accused. Therefore, the second reason given in the refusal check slip necessarily has to be interfered with.

¶49

Insofar as the first reason is concerned, the third respondent has demanded the production of the parent document of the property. A Division Bench of this court in P.Pappu Vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram [2024 (5) CTC 575], has concluded that there is no necessity to produce the original of the parent deed at the time of registration. The view taken by the Division Bench in Pappu's case found acceptance by the Supreme Court, with the dismissal of the special leave petition, preferred by the State against the order of the Division Bench.

¶50

11. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal No. RFL/Vallam_Thanjavur/160/2024 dated

¶51

6/8

¶52

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

¶53

W.P(MD)No.7033 of 2025

¶54

18.12.2024 on the file of the third respondent is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to the third respondent/Sub Registrar to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. No costs.

¶55

27.03.2025

¶56

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To

¶57