T.Prakash v. The District Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA T.Prakash
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The District Registrar District Registrar Office, Namakkal.
2.The Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram, Namakkal - 637 408.
...Respondents
PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his proceedings dated 4.10.2024 in N.A.Ka.No.303 of 2024 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 25.9.2024 of petitioner as per law.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Muruganantham For Respondents : Mr.M.Shahjahan Special Government Pleader (For R1 and R2) 1/5
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition for certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 04.10.2023 and direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.09.2024. 2.The petitioner had purchased an extent of 2268 sqft., under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2017 and lands to an extent of 1950 sqft., under a registered sale deed dated 06.12.2017. From the date of the purchase the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner and his wife had some disagreement and his wife had left matrimonial home and now filed proceedings for maintenance. The petitioner would submit that in order to pay maintenance, since, he is going through a financial difficulty, he had decided to sell his property. However, the petitioner would submit that all the documents of the property had been taken away by his wife and he had given a complaint to the 2/5
Police official on 08.07.2021 stating that the issue was a private dispute. Therefore, the petitioner had obtained certified copies of the parent document and had submitted the sale deed for registration. However, the Sub-Registrar namely, the second respondent rejected the document stating that original documents have to be filed along with the sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 25.09.2024 requesting the Sub-Registrar namely the second respondent to register the document with the certified copies of the documents. However, this request had been turned down stating that the petitioner has to approach a Civil Court or Police for getting appropriate orders. Thus, aggrieved to this, petitioner is before this Court.
3.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records. The learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents.
4.This Court in the case of Ramayee Vs The Sub Registrar and 3/5
others - (2020 (6) CTC 697), held that the registering authority cannot insist upon the original documents being presented at the time of registration of the documents. The learned judges have given the extent of registering authorities power to hold an enquiry at the time of registration of the document and also the reasons for refusing to register the said document. Therefore, the continued insistence of these documents by the registering authority is absolutely baseless. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings of the second respondent in N.A.Ka.No.303 of 2024 dated 4.10.2024 is quashed. The second respondent is directed to register the document within a period of two weeks from the date of its representation. No costs.
12.12.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ep To 1.The District Registrar District Registrar Office, Namakkal.
2.The Sub-Registrar, 4/5
Rasipuram, Namakkal - 637 408.
P.T.ASHA , J, ep 12.12.2024 5/5