Court outlines obligations for document registration under missing documents conditions.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY N.Manickam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Registrar, O/o.District Registrar, Collectorate Campus, Pudukkottai District. 2. The Sub Registrar, O/o.Sub Registrar, Keeramangalam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip NO. RFL/ Keeramangalam /4/2026 of the 2nd respondent dated 29.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to register the sale deed dated 29.01.2026 executed in favour of the vendor Devarajan, S/o. Lakshmanan with regard to the petitioners property in new S.F No. 162/1 A3 (Old S.F.No. 162/1 A) with an extent of 12.30 cents situates at Keeramangalam North Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District based on the Petitioners representation dated

02.02.2026 and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Karthika For Respondents : M/s.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader ORDER The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip NO. RFL/ Keeramangalam /4/2026 of the 2nd respondent dated 29.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to register the sale deed dated 29.01.2026 executed in favour of the vendor Devarajan, S/o. Lakshmanan with regard to the petitioners property in new S.F No. 162/1 A3 (Old S.F.No. 162/1 A) with an extent of 12.30 cents situates at Keeramangalam North Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District based on the Petitioners representation dated

02.02.2026”

2. Heard M/s.R.Karthika, learned counsel for petitioner and M/s.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.

3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the subject property and submitted the relevant documents before the 2^nd respondent for registration. However, the same was rejected vide the impugned refusal check slip dated 29.01.2026, on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original title deed referred to in the document presented, namely Doc. No. 601 of 1990 dated 16.08.1990. It is the contention of the petitioner that the original document is not traceable, it is believed to have been destroyed during the Gaja Cyclone.

5. In view of the amendment to the Act by the introduction of Section 34(C), it has been specifically made obligatory on the part of the presenter of the document either to produce the original document or if the original is missing or obtain not traceable certificate from the jurisdictional police authority.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner’s document is believed to have gone missing during the Gaja Cyclone, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directs the petitioner to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police authority regarding the missing document. Upon lodging of the complaint, the respondent police are directed to examine the matter and, after verification, issue a Not Traceable Certificate to the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit all relevant documents along wi