← Library
Madras High CourtWP/29088/2023dismissed

K.Solai v. The Sub Registrar

2023-10-09Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN K.Solai ... Petitioner versus The Sub Registrar, Sankarapuram SRO, Sankarapuram,

...Respondent

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Sankarapuram/48/2023 dated 07.09.2023 quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 07.09.2023 executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife Tmt.Chitra in respect of the property measuring 44 cents in S.F.No.64/8 and 1/10th share in the 5 H.P Motor Pump set and the Well in S.F.No.65, Thiyagarajapuram Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

Pg.Nos.1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage, itself.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Sankarapuram/48/2023 dated 07.09.2023 and consequently to direct the respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 07.09.2023 executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife Tmt.Chitra in respect of the property measuring to an extent of 44 cents in S.F.No.64/8 and 1/10th share in the 5 H.P Motor Pump set and the Well in S.F.No.65, Thiyagarajapuram Village, Sankarapuram Taluk,

3. According to the petitioner, originally the aforementioned property belongs to one Valli, who is the aunt of the petitioner and patta also stands Pg.Nos.2/6

in her name. Since she has no issues, she executed a Will dated 20.04.2016 in favour of the petitioner. The testatrix Valli died on 21.04.2016 and her death was duly registered. After her death, the Will came info force and accordingly, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property as its absolute owner. While so, the petitioner executed a settlement deed dated 07.09.2023 in favour of his wife S.Chitra by tracing his title under the Will dated 20.04.2016. Hence, the petitioner presented the documents before the respondent for registering the settlement deed on 07.09.2023, but the respondent returned the same on the ground that no prior registered documents have been produced. Challenging the said impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 07.09.2023, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 07.09.2023 issued by the respondent is per se arbitrary, illegal against the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908. There is no rival claim or dispute as to the title, hence, the respondent cannot have any legal impediment to register the document. He further Pg.Nos.3/6

submitted that there is a duty cast upon the respondent to register a document, when the document is presented in line with the statutory requirements on payment of necessary stamp duty, when there is no objection to the same. Therefore, he submitted that the respondent may be directed to register the Settlement Deed dated 07.09.2023 executed by the petitioner in favour of his wife Tmt.Chitra in respect of the subject property

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that since the respondent has not passed the final order, the said application was refused only for want of proper documents for registration.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 07.09.2023 is not a final order and the respondent returned the same only for want of documents and hence, the petitioner may approach the respondent with proper documents for registration and work out his Pg.Nos.4/6

remedy in the manner known to law. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable.

7. In the light of the above facts, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work our his remedy in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to costs. 09.10.2023 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index:Yes/No ms To The Sub Registrar, Sankarapuram SRO, Sankarapuram, Pg.Nos.5/6

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms 09.10.2023 Pg.Nos.6/6