The Inspector General v. A.M.Murugan,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.04.2015

CORAM

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M. VENUGOPAL W.A.No.631 of 2015

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai 600 028.

2. The District Registrar, Krishnagiri.

3. The Sub Registrar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

... Appellants Vs.

1 A.M. Murugan 2 C.D.Parimala ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 05.01.2015 made in W.P.No. 32670 of 2014. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Me.Ku.No.306/2014 dated 24.10.2014 and to quash the same an consequently direct the third respondent to register the sale deed dated 29.9.2014 executed by the 4th respondent in respect of the lands situate in Survey Nos.164, 165, 166/1, 356/1, 435 and 436 Kattagaram Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District. For Appellants : Mr. N. Sakthivel Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. S.M.S.Sriram for M/s. P. Valliappan - R1 Mr. J. Bharathiraja - R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Satish K.Agnihotri,J.) The instant intra-Court appeal arises from the order dated 05.1.2015 made in W.P.No. 32670 of 2014, which was filed questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 24.10.2014 passed by the third respondent / third appellant, whereunder, the third respondent/ third appellant had declined to register the sale deed dated 29.09.2014 on account of certain defects.

2. The learned single Judge, having considered all the aspects of the matter, relying on and referring to a decision of this Court in Appourva J. Patel - Vs. - The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai 600 0281, wherein it was held that the registering authority has no power to examine the title and ownership while registering the document, allowed the writ petition quashing the order dated 24.10.2014 with a direction to register and release the sale deed dated 29.09.2014. Therefore, the respondents therein are in appeal before us.

3. The only submission advanced by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants is that the respondents/ writ petitioners may not have any difficulty in producing all the documents before the authorities for taking a decision. He has not made any submission on the question of law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/ writ petitioners submits that the respondents/ writ petitioners have no objection to produce all the relevant documents in their possession as and when required by the registering authority.

5. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, except directing the respondents/ writ petitioners to produce all the documents available with them, as and when required by the registering authority, before registration of the document.

6. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2015 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ra 2012(4) CTC 689

To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai 600 028.

2. The District Registrar, Krishnagiri.

3. The Sub Registrar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

+1cc to M/s.P.Valliappan, Advocate, S.R.No.21266 +1cc to Mr.J.B.Bharathiraja, Advocate, S.R.No.20981 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.21047 W.A.No.631 of 2015 CNR(CO) CA(28/04/2015)