Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
V.Ramasamy – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of general of Registration – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.K.Vengadesh Durai Raja for Mr.Deepanuday
For the Respondents: Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader
The court established that a certified copy of a document can validate the genuineness of its original, warranting registration despite missing parts.
Headnote:This judgment involves a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which challenges a refusal by the Sub Registrar to register a settlement deed due to a missing page in the original document. The court finds that the petitioner produced a certified copy of the parent document, thus proving its genuineness, necessitating the registration of the deed if otherwise in order. The court quashes the impugned order and allows the writ petition, directing prompt registration of the deed. However, there are no costs awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to registration refusal due to missing document pages. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. submissions regarding document authentication. (Para 3) |
| 3. court finds sufficient proof for registration. (Para 4) |
| 4. court orders registration of deed. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 14.02.2026 issued by the 4th respondent, refusing to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the last page of the parent document produced by the petitioner is missing. 2.The petitioner also claims that the petitioner had also produced the certified copy of the parent document to the 4th respondent to prove that the original parent document produced by the petitioner in which the last page of the said document is missing, is a genuine document.
3.Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner had produced the certified copy of the parent document.
4.Since the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the parent document which will prove that the original parent document produced by him is a genuine document, necessarily, the respondents will have to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration, if it is otherwise in order. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 14.02.2026, has been issued by the 4th respondent by total non- application of mind to the fact that the petitioner has been able to prove that the original parent document produced by the petitioner is a genuine document as he has substituted the same with the certified copy, which is also not disputed by the respondents.
5.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.02.2026, passed by the 4th respondent is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed by directing the 4th respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration if it is otherwise in order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
