The Sub-Registrar cannot deny to register a document if it is properly stamped and there is no impediment to register the same.

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order A.Thi.Moo.No.82/2015 dated 17.06.2015 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to register the document dated 17.06.2015 in respect of house site situated in Panchalankurichi Village, Revenue Survey No.483/1, Plot No.13 to the extent of 1350 Sq.ft 125.418 Sq.mt or 3.0999 cents, Tuticorin District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased a housing plot at Panchalankurichi Village in Patta No.1600, Plot No.13, Revenue S.No.483.1 to the extent of 3.099 cents (which is equal to 1350 Sq.ft and 125.418 Sq.mt). The petitioner's vendor one R. Balu of KTC Nagar, Sankaraperi, Thoothukudi District executed a sale deed on 17.06.2015 for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,300/-in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, on 17.06.2015, the sale document was presented to the fourth respondent Sub-Registrar Office. But the fourth respondent returned the documents vide impugned order in Ao.Thi.Moo.No.82/2015 dated 17.06.2015.

2.1. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the settled law, the Registrar should register the documents if the same is properly produced before the Sub-Registrar concerned. But, in the case on hand, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document by referring the communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, dated 27.08.2013 stating that the document should not be registered without obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from him. The further case of the petitioner is that on 12.04.2013, a Sale Deed No.1700/2014 was registered by the same Sub-Registrar. In this regard, it has been further contended that when the same objection was raised by the Tahsildar for registration of document of one Saravana Kumar, the said Saravana Kumar had filed an original suit in O.S.No.397 of 2013, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. The said suit ended in favour of the said Saravanakumar. As against the said suit, no appeal was filed by the respondents therein. However, the document presented by the said Saravana Kumar was not registered by the respondents therein. Therefore, he approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 13583 of 2015. This Court, by an order dated 31.07.2015, made in W.P. (MD) No.13583 of 2015 directed the respondents therein to register the document.

2.2. To back up his averment, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a judgment of this Court reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 342, R. Sreedhar Vs. Registering Officer (District Registrar), wherein, it has been held as follows:-

“It is for the revenue authority to decide about the issuance or rejection of patta in respect of poromboke water pond and the registering authority has no power to withhold a sale deed and deny registration”

3. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I find that if the document is properly stamped and when there is no impediment to register the same, the Sub-Registrar cannot deny to register the document in question. Hence, following the earlier order of this Court made in W.P. (MD) No.13583 of 2015 dated 31.07.2015, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall produce the necessary documents to the satisfaction of the fourth respondent, who in turn shall consider the same and thereafter, proceed with the registration and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.