THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.31170 of 2025

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of respondent No.2 in refusing to register the relinquishment deed, dated 04.09.2025 in favour of respondent No.4, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to receive, process and register the notarised relinquishment deed, dated 04.09.2025 in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the properties mentioned in the said deed.

2. Heard Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and with their consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondent is dispensed with.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is the co-owner of certain ancestral properties and out of her own will and without coercion, she had executed a relinquishment deed, dated 04.09.2025 relinquishing all her rights in the said ancestral properties i.e., agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.328/AA; Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.329/AA; Ac.0.085 guntas in Sy.No.330/AA; Ac.1.39 guntas in Sy.No.331/1AA; Ac.1.115 guntas in Sy.No.337/A1; Ac.0.355 guntas in Sy.No.339/1AA and Ac.1.055 guntas in Sy.No.359/AA. Learned counsel would further submit that the said relinquishment deed has been neither accepted nor rejected by the Tahsildar, Kollapur, except endorsing on the representation, dated 18.09.2025 made by the petitioner “to put up for endorsement”. Thereafter, the document in question was presented before respondent No.3 for registering the same, but respondent No.3 also neither accepted nor rejected the same. He would further submit that, as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Act, 1908”), the Registrar has to register any document on certain limited grounds and the refusal to register the same does not fall in any of the categories mentioned under Section 71 of the Act, 1908. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kuppuswami Chettiar v. A.S.P.A. Arunachalam Chettiar, AIR 1967 SC 1395, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is mandate on the part of respondent No.3 to register a document, which is presented before him and the action of respondent No.3 in not registering the said relinquishment deed without assigning any reason would infringe the rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and

300-A of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the petitioner has not made the Tahsildar, Kollapur as party respondents nor any document has been submitted before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioner had submitted the document before respondent No.3. However, he would

further submit that the petitioner has got every right to file an appeal before the appropriate authority against the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to register the document.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to Sections 32 and 71 of the Act, 1908, which read as under:-

“32. Persons to present documents for registration.— Except in the cases mentioned in Sections 31, 88 and 89, every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration-office,— (a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or (c) by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power-of attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.

“Section 71: Reasons for refusal to register to be record