M. Rathinagopalan v. The Inspector General Of Registration

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD)No.3453 of 2025 M.Rathnagopalan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No. 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2. Sub Registrar, O/o. the Sub Registrar, Melur, Thoothukudi.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the rejection of the refusal check slip bearing No. RFL/Melur/Thoothukudi/9/2025 dated 29.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner herein, relating to the properties described therein, in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Shathurthi Raja For Respondent 1 & 2 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the refusal check slip bearing No. RFL/Melur/Thoothukudi/9/2025 dated 29.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent herein to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner herein, relating to the properties described therein, in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act.

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.V.Shathurthi Raja for the petitioner and learned

Advocate General for Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, Government Advocate for the respondents.

4. I pointed out to the learned Government Advocate 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. 20.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes MAC

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

MAC To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No. 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2. Sub Registrar, O/o. the Sub Registrar, Melur, Thoothukudi.

W.P.(MD)No.3453 of 2025 Dated : 20.02.2025