T.Premavathy v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI T. Premavathy ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub- Registrar, Manavalanagar Sub-Registrar Office, Tiruvallur ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Refusal Check slip bearing Refusal Number. RFL/MANAVALANAGAR/2/2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to register settlement Deed dated 09.09.2022 executed by the petitioner in favour of his son Mr.Srithar without insisting the production of original title document and pass orders.
For petitioner : Mr. S.K.D. Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.E. Sundaram Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Refusal Check slip bearing Refusal Number. RFL/MANAVALANAGAR/2/2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to register settlement Deed dated 09.09.2022 executed by the petitioner in favour of his son Mr.Srithar without insisting the production of original title document.
2. Mr.E. Sundaram, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. In view of the limited relief sought for in this petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner presented a document on 09.09.2022 for executing a settlement Deed in favour of her son Srithar before the respondent. However, the said document was refused to be registered by the respondent on the ground that original parent
document was not annexed along with the document which is presented for registration. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the above relief.
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner annexed the certified copy of the parent document, even then the respondent refused to register the document is not sustainable, the issue involved in the present case, is no more res-integra. He further relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated 11.02.2021. The relevant portion of the above said order is extracted hereunder:- "8.This Court is entirely in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. The latest decision of the learned Single Judge appears to have not considered the implication of the Circular with reference to the scheme of the relevant Act.
On the other hand, the above three decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner would certainly hold the field and in which event, insistence on production of original Title Deeds by the Registering Authority is without any authority of law. The Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai in this regard cannot have any sanctity, unless the power of issuance of such Circular is authorized under the provisions of the Act.
that view of the matter, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the subject issue is no more resintegra. As far as the latest decision of the learned Single Judge is concerned, being a kind of a contra view, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16768 of 2020, dated 26.11.2020 has not appreciated the provisions of the Act, as the reasons of the learned Single Judge are contrary to the well considered earlier Judgments of this Court. The learned Judge has reasoned without any specific reference to the scheme of the Act, which governs the registration."
5. The learned Government Advocte appearing for the respondents submits that the document presented by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent on the ground that original parent document was not annexed along with the document.
6. In view of the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19745 of 2020, order dated 11.02.2021, makes it clear that, there is no need to present the parent document, certified copy of the parent document is sufficient to entertain the document for registration.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to entertain the document
presented by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the petitioner is directed to pay requisite Stamp Duty and Registration Charges. No costs.
17.10.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order smn To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub- Registrar, Manavalanagar Sub-Registrar Office, Tiruvallur
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
smn 17.10.2022