P.Vinoth Johnson Prakash 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.4557 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3268 & 3269 of 2025 P.Vinoth Johnson Prakash ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Deputy Inspector General Of Registration, Tirunelveli District - 627 002.
3. The District Registrar, Registration Department, St.Mark's Street - 627 002, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Sub Registrar, Valliyoor - 627 117, 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 Check Slip issued by the
4th respondent Sub Registrar in Refusal No. RFL/Valliyoor/80/2024 dated 19.12.2024, QUASH THE SAME and DIRECT the 4th respondent Sub Registrar to register forthwith the Sale Deed presented by petitioner in favour of Tmt. Mary Vidhya vide Application No.TP/204526380/2024 dated 19.12.2024 in respect of his 28.18 cents of land in Survey No. 555/2 (Sub-Division No.555/4B), Atchamphadu Village, Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar For Respondent 1 to 4 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Government Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the Refusal Check Slip issued by the 4th respondent Sub Registrar in Refusal No. RFL/Valliyoor/80/2024 dated 19.12.2024 and consequently, to direct the 4th respondent Sub Registrar to register forthwith the sale deed presented by the petitioner in favour of Tmt. Mary Vidhya vide Application No.TP/204526380/2024 dated 19.12.2024 in respect of his 28.18 cents of land in Survey No. 555/2 (Sub-Division No.555/4B), Atchamphadu Village, Tirunelveli District.
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.K.Ragatheesh Kumar for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, 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. 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 Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Deputy Inspector General Of Registration, Tirunelveli District - 627 002.
3. The District Registrar, Registration Department, St.Mark's Street - 627 002, Tirunelveli District.
4. The Sub Registrar, Valliyoor - 627 117, Tirunelveli District.
W.P.(MD)No.4557 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3268 & 3269 of 2025 Dated : 20.02.2025