Madras High Court
N. Arun Prakash vs The Joint Sub Registrar – I on 7 July, 2022
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.P.(MD)NO.19396 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.19396 of 2021
N. Arun Prakash ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Joint Sub Registrar – I,
Office of the Joint Sub Registrar-I,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the respondent to release the petitioner's settlement deed
bearing Doc.No.98 of 2021 dated 23.07.2021 registered on the
file the respondent by considering the petitioner's
representation dated 09.10.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.D. Selvanayagam
For R-1 : Mr.K.S. Selva Ganesan,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-2 : Mr.M.S Jaya Karthik
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
2 W.P.(MD)NO.19396 OF 2021
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The petitioner's father Natarajan executed the settlement deed dated 23.07.2021 in favour of the writ petitioner settling the subject properties. A document was presented for registration and it appears that the registration formalities had also been concluded. Since the original title document was not produced, the respondent did not release the same. For directing the respondent to release the petition mentioned document, this writ petition came to be filed.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it had been stated that the document in question is with one Selvaraj. Thereupon this Court directed the petitioner to implead the said Selvaraj. Pursuant thereto, the impleading petition came to be filed and Selvaraj was impleaded as the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the property in question admittedly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 3 W.P.(MD)NO.19396 OF 2021 stands in the name of his father and that his father executed the settlement deed in his favour. He relied on the decision reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526 ( Sivanadiyan Vs. Sub Registrar, Pudukottai ) for the proposition that the registering authority cannot insist on production of the original document. Since the registration formalities have already been concluded, he called upon this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the registering authorities as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that since the petitioner's conduct is not aboveboard, this Court ought not to grant the relief sought for.
6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
7. It is true that the registering authority cannot insist on production of the original document. In fact the issue https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 4 W.P.(MD)NO.19396 OF 2021 raised in this writ petition is sought to be answered by relying on the aforesaid decision reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526 ( Sivanadiyan Vs. Sub Registrar, Pudukottai ). But I cannot lose sight of the conduct of the writ petitioner. It is seen that the writ petitioner's father Natarajan and Selvaraj / impleaded second respondent were having financial transactions. Selvaraj had issued Lawyer's notice on 02.03.2019 to Natarajan. A copy of the said notice has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. It can be seen therefrom that Selvaraj knew fully well that the original title deed in respect of the subject property was with him. Selvaraj chose to give a false complaint before the Inspector of Police, Karur Town police station and obtained a false certificate as if the document is not traceable. Natarajan knew that Selvaraj was in possession of the subject property. He could not have given any complaint as if it is missing. Such non-traceable certificate was issued on 09.08.2020 by the Inspector of Police, Karur Town police station. The document in question was presented before the registering authority. It is also noted that the properties are situated at Paramakudi. Selvaraj lodged objections before the Sub Registrar, Paramakudi. That is why, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 5 W.P.(MD)NO.19396 OF 2021 the document in question has been presented before the Joint Sub Registrar, Pudukkottai. This conduct of the executant of the settlement deed cannot be lost sight of by me.
8. It is well settled that granting relief in the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and if the Court is not satisfied with the bona fides and conduct of the writ petitioner, it can non-suit him on that ground. Since I am more than satisfied that the father of the writ petitioner had attempted to play fraud before the registering authority, I am not inclined to grant relief. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
07.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
To:
The Joint Sub Registrar – I,
Office of the Joint Sub Registrar-I,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/6
6 W.P.(MD)NO.19396 OF 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
W.P.(MD)No.19396 of 2021
07.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/6