Ponmari.K v. The District Registrar(Administration)
1 W.P.(MD)NO.328 OF 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.328 of 2021 K.Ponmari ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Registrar(Administration), Registration Department, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Sub Registrar, Nagalnayakkanpatti Sub Registrar Office, Nagalnayakkanpatti, Dindigul District.
3. T.Mallika (R-3 is impleaded vide Order dated 15.12.2021 in W.M.P.(MD)No.8213 of 2021) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned letter issued by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.127 of 2020 dated 11.01.2021 and to quash the same as illegal, improper and against the statute under Section 61(2) of the Registration Act 1908 and consequently direct the second respondent herein to deliver and hand over 1/6
2 W.P.(MD)NO.328 OF 2021 the registered gift settlement deed dated 19.11.2020 registered on 21.11.2020 bearing document No.6511 of 2020 to the petitioner or to the petitioner's son namely, K.Alagarsamy, beneficiary of the document after getting back from the third respondent herein.
(Prayer is amended vide Order dated 12.07.2022 in W.M.P. (MD)No.10419 of 2022) For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader.
For R-3 : Mr.Kannan * * *
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The writ petitioner is none other than the mother of the impleaded respondent. The petitioner and her three daughters jointly executed the petition mentioned document in favour of the petitioner's son Alagarsamy. After the document was executed, it was presented for registration before the second respondent. The registration formalities were 2/6
3 W.P.(MD)NO.328 OF 2021 completed. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of handing over the original registered document to her, it was handed over to the third respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. It is true that the third respondent was also the co-executant of the settlement deed. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whom the document should have been handed over. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws my attention to Section 61(2) of the Registration Act. It reads as follows:- " 61. Endorsements and certificate to be copied and document returned - (1) ..
(2) The registration of the document shall, thereupon, be deemed complete, and the document shall, then, be returned to the person who presented the same for registration, or to such other person (if any) as he has nominated in writing in that behalf on the receipt mentioned in section 52. "
3/6
4 W.P.(MD)NO.328 OF 2021
4. In this case, it is obvious that it was the petitioner who presented the document for registration. When a document presented for registration, acknowledgement would be given. In this case, the original acknowledgement is very much with the petitioner herein. Therefore, she must be considered as a person who presented the document for registration. The second respondent had not acted in consonance with the statutory mandate.
5. Therefore, I hold that the action of the second respondent in handing over the document to the third respondent is clearly illegal. Since the third respondent is now having the original document, the third respondent is directed to hand over the same to the second respondent within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent will act in terms of Rule 106 of the Registration Rules. It reads as follows:- " 106. When a party to a document objects to its being returned to a person in whose favour the receipt has been drawn up, the objection shall not be allowed to prevail, unless such party can satisfy the registering officer that he has applied to a competent 4/6
5 W.P.(MD)NO.328 OF 2021 Court, for an injunction to restrain the registering officer from returning the document. "
6. The impugned communication issued by the second respondent is set aside. This writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
12.07.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU Note : Issue order copy on 14.07.2022.
To:
1. The District Registrar(Administration), Registration Department, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Sub Registrar, Nagalnayakkanpatti Sub Registrar Office, Nagalnayakkanpatti, Dindigul District.
5/6
6 W.P.(MD)NO.328 OF 2021 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU W.P.(MD)No.328 of 2021 12.07.2022 6/6