Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR
Sellappa Gounder @ Sellappan – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar, Komarapalayam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed to quash refusal order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. analysis of legal validity of registration rules. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER :
1. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order made in refusal check slip dated 27.09.2023 in RFL/Komarapalayam/116/2023 and consequently direct the respondent to register the settlement deed dated 27.09.2023 by verifying the certified copy of the parent document bearing No. 3423 of 1995 and 3113 of 2022 and Encumbrance certificates without insisting for Original Parent deed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that on 27.09.2023, the petitioner executed a settlement deed and presented the same for registration before the respondent. The respondent refused to register the same on the ground that original parent document has not been produced. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to register the settlem
Provisions requiring original documents for registration are unconstitutional; certified copies suffices as valid evidence for property documentation when originals are unavailable.
The court established that a certified copy of a document can validate the genuineness of its original, warranting registration despite missing parts.
Non-production of original documents cannot justify refusal to register a settlement deed when certified copies are available, affirming the constitutional right to property.
The court affirmed the necessity of a non-traceable certificate for registering documents when the original is unavailable under Section 34-C of the Registration Act.
The court established that the requirement for original title documents under Rule 55-A(i) is not absolute and can be satisfied through alternative means in cases of loss.
The necessity of producing an original document for registration under the Registration Act was emphasized while allowing for alternative documentation.
A settlement deed's registration can be mandated upon proper verification of original documents and third-party claims under Section 34-C of the Registration Act.
Registration refusal based solely on non-production of original title documents infringes property rights; alternatives like affidavits and online verification are admissible for registration.
Final decree supersedes prior document under Section 34C; original production not mandatory if in court custody.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
