Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2563
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
P. Rajan – Petitioner
Versus
The District Registrar – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.9209 2023
Decided On : 16-10-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr.H.Arumugam
For the Respondents:Mr.P.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General III assisted by Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate
The completion of registration via special attendance cannot be invalidated by later technical discrepancies in online processes, affirming the legal sufficiency of execution in presence of witnesses.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act - Sections 31 and 32 - Writ petition for registration of settlement deed - Settlement deed executed but not registered due to mismatch in Aadhaar details - The court held that once the execution of the document was completed via special attendance, its registration cannot be undone due to technical errors in the online process - The registration is deemed complete and cannot be made contingent on subsequent online acceptance issues. (Paras 9-13)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Writ is maintainable to ensure execution of lawful completed acts especially when no issues exist in the execution process. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The settlement deed regarding property was executed by the petitioner's deceased brother, but was not registered due to a mismatch with Aadhaar details; despite completion in presence of witnesses, the document remained pending.
Findings of Court:
The registration on special attendance was deemed complete and the delay in online processing was not a valid reason to deny registration.
Issues: Whether the registration of the settlement deed was effectively completed and if the technical error could prevent its registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that completion of registration via special attendance, as mandated by law, should not be negated due to errors arising subsequently in the online submission process.
Result: Respondents directed to make necessary registrations promptly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks mandated registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. counsel argues for validity of online processes. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court affirms registration completion despite aadhaar error. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court orders respondents to process registration records. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct the second respondent to complete the registration of the settlement deed dated 23.09.2022 as per order of the first respondent dated 23.12.2022 by rectifying the online mistake by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2023 and release the original document within a stipulated period of time fixed by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's brother one Kanimurugan has executed a settlement deed in respect of his half share in the property in question and the registration was completed on a special attendance. The execution was completed and the document is also executed in favour of the petitioner on 23.09.2022. Thereafter, the executant died on 25.09.2022. However, the document was not released, on the ground that the online thumb impression of the settlee and the thump impression found in the Adar Card do not match. Thereafter, the first respondent had directed the second respondent to set right the online mistake through the Company TCS. Despite the same, the said mistake has not been set right and the document has not been released. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction.
3.The respondents filed counter to the effect that the document was sought to be registered on a special attendance. Copy of the settlement deed is also uploaded through online and token was generated. The Sub Registrar also visited the residence of Kanimurgan and after ascertaining the mental status of the said Kanimurugan, the second respondent completed the formalities and in the presence of two independent witnesses on 23.09.2022, the document has been executed. However, due to the wrong details in the Aadhaar card, an error has occurred in the online process of registration and hence, the petitioner was instructed to get the Aadhaar Card corrected and come back.
4.In the meanwhile, the petitioner's brother died on 25.09.2022. Therefore, on 10.11.2022, the petitioner in order to obtain re-token applied through online, where he entered the name of another witness, since one of the witnesses signed in the settlement deed at the time of execution, went out of the State and hence, again the registration was not accepted in online.
5.It is the further contention of the second respondent that the petitioner was informed to approach the second respondent, who has the possibility of rectifying the technical error through the outsourcing company, namely TCS. Since the second respondent has not registered the document, inspite the representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.2023, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registration was done on a special attendance. Therefore, keeping the document pending on the ground that the online system has not supported, cannot be sustained. Hence, seeks a direction.
7.Whereas, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that what was completed in the residence of the petitioner is only execution. But, the document has not been presented for online registration. According to him, all the registration has to be completed only through online system. However, the registration has not been made due to the error in the Aadhaar card of the settlee. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
9.It is not disputed that the petitioner's brother has executed the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. The execution and the identity of the petitioner's brother are also not disputed. The execution has taken place in the presence of the Sub Registrar on
