S. Madasamy v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD)No.3351 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2353 & 2354 of 2025 S.Madasamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Sub-Registrar, O/o. the Sub Registrar Office, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal slip issued by the 2nd Respondent in his Receipt No.RFL/Nanguneri/73/2024 dated 19.12.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to register and release the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner on 19.12.2024 for registration without insisting for the production of original parent document in the light of order made by this Hon'ble Court
in K.S.Vijayandran Vs IG of Registration 2011 (2) LW 648 within the period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned refusal slip issued by the 2nd respondent in his Receipt No.RFL/Nanguneri/73/2024 dated 19.12.2024 and consequently, to direct the respondents to register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioner on 19.12.2024 for registration without insisting for the production of original parent document in the light of order made by this Court in K.S.Vijayandran Vs IG of Registration 2011 (2) LW 648.
2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property. Pursuant to the exercise of ownership, a document was presented to the Sub Registrar for the purpose of registration. The Sub Registrar invoking Rule 55 A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules sought the production of the original / parent deeds and consequently refused to
register the document. Hence, this writ petition.
3. I heard Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. I pointed out to the learned Additional Government Pleader that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sub Registrar, Pollachi and others [2023 (2) CTC 289) as well as the Division Bench of this Court in P.Pappu Vs. Sub Registrar, Rasipuram [2024 (5) CTC 575], have given directions to the Sub Registrars not to insist upon the production of the original as a condition precedent for registration of the documents.
5. Despite these verdicts, every day this Court is flooded with writs seeking for directions to the Sub Registrars not to insist on production of originals. Hence, I requested the assistance of the learned Advocate General on 05.02.2025, to instruct the State of Tamil Nadu to circulate an instruction informing the Sub Registrars that, production of the original
of the sale deed is not an essential requirement in terms of the Registration Act.
6. The learned Advocate General brought to my notice that the State had preferred an appeal by way of Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court against the order passed in P.Pappu's case in S.L.P (Civil) No.2344 of 2025 and that the same had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 03.02.2025. He informed this Court that he will give suitable directions to the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department in this regard.
7. When I took up the matter for hearing today (20.02.2025), the learned Advocate General brought to my notice that the Constitutional validity of Rule 55 A(i) is a subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in S.LP.No.12167 of 2024 and that the matter is listed for hearing on 18.03.2025. He fairly submitted that without prejudice to the contentions of State of Tamil Nadu in the said Special Leave Petition, a direction can be given in the writ petition to register the document and to return the same.
8. The position of law having been settled in P.Pappu's case and the same having been confirmed by the Supreme Court, the writ petition stands allowed. The Sub Registrar shall register the document, which he has refused to do so under the impugned order.
9. The request of the learned Advocate General is accepted. Needless to add, this order will not stand in the way of the Government in respect of the Constitutional validity of Rule 55 A(i) in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes MAC
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
MAC To
1. The District Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Sub-Registrar, O/o. the Sub Registrar Office, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.
W.P.(MD)No.3351 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2353 & 2354 of 2025 Dated : 20.02.2025