Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Sivanadiyan vs The Sub Registrar on 11 February, 2021

N. Arun Prakash vs The Joint Sub Registrar – I on 7 July, 2022

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.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Selvaraj vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 7 October, 2021

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no need to produce original documents before the respondents for registration of documents as per the observation of Hon'ble Court of Madurai Bench vide W.P.(MD).No.19745 of 2020 in “Sivanadiyan Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Pudukottai” on 11.02.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Court decided that the production of Original Document for registration is not mandatory. However, the petitioner has to prove that the original document has been missed for which he has to publish the same in any local publication in and around his area and make complaint before the police https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 W.P.No16852. of 2021 station in this regard after producing copy of the related documents. Having the copy of the publication and complaint copy, the petitioner may be directed to approach the respondent to register the Gift Deed as prayed for.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

K.Palanisamy vs The Sub-Registrar on 25 August, 2021

5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had categorically held in the decision reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526 (Sivanadiyan Vs. Sub-Registrar, Pudukottai) and also in W.P.No.674 of 2015 dated 05.03.2015 [N.Ramayee Vs. The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Salem] that the registering Authority should not refuse to register the document on the ground that original title deed was not produced. Hence pleaded to set aside the order passed by the respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

V.Selvam vs The Sub-Registrar on 25 August, 2021

5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had categorically held in the decision reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526 (Sivanadiyan Vs. Sub-Registrar, Pudukottai) and also in the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4535 of 2015 dated 05.03.2015 [Lakshmi Ammal Vs. the Sub Registrar, Villivakkam] that the registering Authority should not refuse to register the document on the ground that original title deed was not produced. Hence pleaded to set aside the order passed by the respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

K.Palanisamy vs The Sub-Registrar on 25 August, 2021

5. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had categorically held in the decision reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526 (Sivanadiyan Vs. Sub-Registrar, Pudukottai) and also in W.P.No.674 of 2015 dated 05.03.2015 [N.Ramayee Vs. The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Salem] that the registering Authority should not refuse to register the document on the ground that original title deed was not produced. Hence pleaded to set aside the order passed by the respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

J.Ramanathan vs The Sub Registrar on 24 February, 2022

4.The issue involved in this writ petition has been considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sivanadiyan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai, reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526. In similar circumstances, this Court held that 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3538 of 2022 production of original title deeds is not mandatory and the registering authority is not empowered to insist for production of original documents [parent documents] in the absence of specific provision under the Registration Act. The learned Single Judge has held that the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, cannot have legal sanctity unless the power of issuance of such circular is authorised under the provisions of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

K.Selvaraj vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 25 February, 2022

4.The issue involved in this writ petition has been considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sivanadiyan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai, reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526. In similar circumstances, this Court held that production of original title deeds is not mandatory and the registering authority is not empowered to insist for production of original documents [parent documents] in the absence of specific provision under the Registration Act. Learned Single Judge has held that circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, cannot have legal sanctity unless the power of issuance of such circular is authorised under the provisions of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

S.Sankari vs The Sub-Registrar on 24 February, 2022

4.The issue involved in this writ petition has been considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sivanadiyan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai, reported in 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3542 of 2022 2021 (2) CTC 526. In similar circumstances, this Court held that production of original title deeds is not mandatory and the registering authority is not empowered to insist for production of original documents [parent documents] in the absence of specific provision under the Registration Act. Learned Single Judge has held that circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, cannot have legal sanctity unless the power of issuance of such circular is authorised under the provisions of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Gopal Gounder vs The Sub Registrar (Registration) on 24 February, 2022

4.The issue involved in this writ petition has been considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sivanadiyan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai, reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526. In similar circumstances, this Court held that production of original title deeds is not mandatory and the registering authority is not empowered to insist for production of 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3517 of 2022 original documents [parent documents] in the absence of specific provision under the Registration Act. Learned Single Judge has held that circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, cannot have legal sanctity unless the power of issuance of such circular is authorised under the provisions of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

S.Sankari vs The Sub-Registrar on 24 February, 2022

4.The issue involved in this writ petition has been considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sivanadiyan Vs. The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai, reported in 2021 (2) CTC 526. In similar circumstances, this Court held that 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3536 of 2022 production of original title deeds is not mandatory and the registering authority is not empowered to insist for production of original documents [parent documents] in the absence of specific provision under the Registration Act. The learned Single Judge has held that circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, cannot have legal sanctity unless the power of issuance of such circular is authorised under the provisions of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next