S.Raja Durai Alias Raja v. The Inspector General Of Registration

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 15.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY S.Raja Durai Alias Raja ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Chennai-600 028.

2. The District Registrar, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Sub Registrar, Joint-I Sub Registrar Office, Thoothukudi District.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Refusal Check Slip No.128/2026 dated 29.05.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent, to register and release the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner, acting as the registered Power Agent of Mrs.Banumathy, in respect of the subject property and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jerish Neeraj For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Rajagopalan Government Standing Counsel

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.05.2026.

2. Heard Mr.K.Jerish Neeraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rajagopalan, learned Government Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.05.2026, the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration was refused on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the originals of Document Nos. 1608 of 1986 and 1609 of 1986, and that in view of Section 34C, the document cannot be registered.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, as per Section 34C of the Act, the petitioner is duty-bound to produce the original document under which the petitioner is claiming title. The two deeds referred to are the previous parent documents, and the vendor had purchased the property under a sale deed bearing Registration No. 310 of 1992 dated 17.02.1992. The original of the said document has already been duly produced at the time of registration.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, would submit that, as per the Government Order under Section 34C, it is incumbent upon the presenter of the document to produce the originals of all parent documents in respect of the property. Once the document refers to three deeds, all three ought to have been produced.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials on record.

7. A bare perusal of Section 34C shows that it requires only the production of the previous original document by which the right or subject property was acquired by the presenter of the document. Therefore, since the previous original document being the deed of the year 1992 has been produced, the impugned refusal check slip cannot be sustained on the ground that the other parent deeds were not produced.

8. In view thereof, this writ petition is ordered on the following terms:- i. The impugned refusal check slip dated 29.05.2026 shall stand quashed, and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the 3rd respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order.

ii. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the document, and upon verification of the original previous document through which title is claimed, i.e., the sale deed of the year 1992, the sale deed shall be registered, if there is no other impediment. iii. No costs.

15.06.2026 rgm

To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Chennai-600 028.

2. The District Registrar, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Sub Registrar, Joint-I Sub Registrar Office, Thoothukudi District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

rgm 15.06.2026