Mrs.A.Anitha Premakumari vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 6 July, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Mrs.A.Anitha Premakumari vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 6 July, 2023

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

                                                                                    WP No.25790 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 06-07-2023

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                               WP No.25790 of 2017
                                                      And
                                               WMP No.27214 of 2017


                     1.Mrs.A.Anitha Premakumari
                     2.Mrs.Florence Niranjani
                     3.Mrs.A.Hemima Malini
                     4.Mrs.A.Violet Vinodhini
                     5.Mrs.A.Nancy Priyadarshini
                     6.Mrs.Julia Kirubashini
                     7.Mrs.Mercy Dayamani
                     8.Mrs.Gandhimathi
                     9.Mr.J.Thomas
                     10.Mrs.M.Rajeswari
                     11.Mrs.M.Angeline Prathiba
                     12.Mr.M.Harrison Manoj Kumari                        ... Petitioners

                                                          Vs.

                     1.The Inspector General of Registration,
                       Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
                       Santhome,
                       Chennai.

                     2.The Sub Registrar,
                       Office of the Sub Registrar,
                       Alandur,
                       Chennai.

                     Page 1 of 6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    WP No.25790 of 2017



                     3.Seethapathy                                        ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                     relating to the proceeding dated 30.08.2017 made in No.200 of 2017 passed
                     by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the
                     second respondent to register the Sale Deed dated 03.05.2017 prescribed by
                     the petitioners and return the document to the petitioners after completing
                     all the formalities of registration.



                                   For Petitioners           : Mr.M.Ganeshan

                                   For Respondents-1 and 2: Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
                                                            Government Advocate.

                                   For Respondent-3          : Mr.P.Palaniyandi


                                                        ORDER

The order impugned dated 30.08.2017 passed by the second respondent for refusal to register the Sale Deed dated 03.05.2017 presented by the petitioners, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25790 of 2017

2. The petitioners state that they are the owners of the subject property described in the present writ petition. The petitioners presented a Sale Deed for registration before the Sub Registrar, Alandur.

3. The Sub Registrar returned the document mainly on the ground that the petitioners have not produced the original document and contrarily one Mr.Seethapathy produced the original document pertaining to the subject property. Even in case of mortgage of the property, there is no impediment for the Sub Registrar to register the document.

4. That being the case, in the event of non-production of the original document by the owners of the property, they may be permitted to submit the certified copy of the document. In such circumstances, the Sub Registrar shall verify the certified copy of the document and its genuinity and thereafter proceed with the registration.

5. In view of the fact that the document produced by the petitioners was returned on the ground that they have not produced the original document and the learned counsel for the petitioners made a Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25790 of 2017 submission that the petitioners are ready to submit the certified copy of the original document. Thus, there is no impediment for registration of Sale Deed presented by the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 30.08.2017 passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.200 of 2017, is quashed and the second respondent is directed to proceed with the registration, if the petitioners have furnished the certified copy of the original document. It is needless to state that the document presented by the petitioners must be otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules in force.

7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06-07-2023 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25790 of 2017 To

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai.

2.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Alandur, Chennai.

Page 5 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25790 of 2017 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn WP 25790 of 2017 06-07-2023 Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court