Madras High CourtWP/45234/2025disposed of

N.Meenakshi v. The State Represented By

2025-11-21Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY N.Meenakshi, W/o. R.Nagarajan, Residing At No. 6, 103c 7th Street, Annamalaiyar Building, Shankar Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 75.

Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented By The Sub Registrar, Sriperumbathur, Sub Registrar Office, Sriperumpathur, Kancheepuram District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner document dated 28.10.2025 for to register the sale deed without the original document in original deed of the property in Sale deed document No. 4750/ 1990 dated 21.09.1990 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.J.Chandran Sundar Sashikumar for Mr.P. Arumugam For Respondent:

Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 28.10.2025 presented by the petitioner without insisting the original document of the subject property. 2.Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the property comprised in Survey No:33/2C(Part), 33/2B(Part) & 33/3(Part), 33/2B(Part) and 33/3(Part), Kundrathur Taluk, Kanchipuram District on 21.09.1990 vide Document No.4750 of 1990 and the patta also stands in the name of the petitioner in Patta No.2501. The petitioner decided to sell the

aforesaid property to meet out her medical expenses and executed a sale deed dated 28.10.2025 and presented the same for registration. However, the respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the original document of the subject property was not furnished by the petitioner. 4.He would further submit that the petitioner's house has been flooded more than twice and all the things inside the house got damaged and the original document of the subject property was misplaced. Therefore, the petitioner produced the certified copy of the document during the registration of said sale deed. However, the respondent refused the accept the same and insisting for original document of the subject property. Hence, he prayed to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 28.10.2025 without insisting upon the original document.

5.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that since the original document of the subject property was not produced, the respondent refused to register the same deed presented by the

petitioner. Since there is no dispute on the aspect that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 29.09.1990, appropriate orders may be passed.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7.Considering the submissions made by either parties, it is evident that admittedly the subject property belongs to the petitioner which has been purchased vide sale deed dated 21.09.1990 and registered in Document No.4750 of 1990, which is very much available in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Since the original documents of the subject property got misplaced the petitioner furnished the certified copy of the same during the registration of sale deed dated 28.10.2025, which was not accepted by the respondent. Such being the case, this Court is of the view that unless and otherwise, there is no protest petition being filed objecting the registration of subject property, the respondent

supposed to register the same since there is no dispute regarding the purchase of property by the petitioner in the year 1990. Hence, there is no impediment for the respondent to register the sale deed dated 28.10.2025, presented by the petitioner.

8.Thus, the respondent is directed to register the sale deed dated 28.10.2025, presented by the petitioner, upon its re-presentation, if it is otherwise in order. In the event any protest petition being filed, the respondent shall issue notice to all the parties concerned and take a decision regarding the registration of the sale deed dated 28.10.2025. 9.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 21-11-2025 rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To The State Represented By The Sub Registrar, Sriperumbathur Sub Registrar Office, Sriperumpathur, Kancheepuram District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

rst

21-11-2025