logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5893 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P. (MD) No. 21984 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : Seenivasan Versus The Sub Registrar, Vallam Sub Registrar Office, Thanjavur
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V.G. Vallarasu Chezhiyan, Advocate. For the Respondent: S. Venkatesh, Additional Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 04-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner in TP/292644259/2026 dated on 27.07.2026 for registration without insisting for the production of original parent document.)

1. Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to register a Sale Deed presented by the petitioner in TP/292644259/2026 dated 27.07.2026 for registration without insisting the production of original parent document.

4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft situated in Plot Nos.159 and 160 in Survey No.6/1A1 vide a registered Sale Deed in Doc.No.640 of 2015 dated 05.03.2015.

5. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been issued with Token No.TP/292644259/2026. However, the respondent declined to register the document for registration.

6. On a specific query as to whether the petitioner is unable to produce the original Sale Deed dated 05.03.2025 registered as Doc.No.640 of 2015, the averments contained in the affidavit is that the original Sale Deed was misplaced and hence, he is not in a position to produce the original Sale Deed.

7. It is noticed that the document that was registered in favour of the petitioner could have also been subject to equitable mortgage by depositing the title deed.

8. However, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi vs. the Sub Registrar and others in Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 dated 07.04.2025, Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Act, 1908, has been declared to be ultra vires. Following the above decision, this Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in a detailed order rendered in M/s. Dugars v. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Registration Department and Others, rendered on 23.06.2026 in W.P.(MD) No.7415 of 2026 etc. batch, has struck down Section 34C of the Registration Act, 1908, which was inserted on 23.01.2026. Relevant portion, in para 130 is reproduced below:

                   “130. With regard to the last proviso to Section 34-C, it is clear that its survival depends upon the survival of the other limbs of the provision. Consequently, if the other limbs of Section 34-C are struck down, the last proviso must also automatically go. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire amendment introduced is nothing but a resurrection of the earlier Rule 55-A, which had been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As already noted supra, the legislature cannot vest adjudicatory powers with the executive. Such an exercise violates the separation of powers thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution and is also impose arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on the right to deal with one's property, which is a constitutional right under Article 300-A. It is now well settled through a catena of decisions that the right to property has been recognized as a human right under Article 21.”

9. Therefore, the procedure complated under Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registraion Rules, 1949, as also Section 34C of the Registration Act, 1908, are not available. At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner may have created an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deed in Doc.No.640/2015 dated 05.03.2015.

10. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to incorporate the suitable paragraph/narration in the Sale Deed dated 27.07.2026 stating that the petitioner has not created equitable mortgage on the property in respect of Doc.No.640/2015 dated 05.03.2015 and no third party right subsistent in respect of the same.

11. Subject to the petitioner complying with the above stipulations, on presentation of documents with the incorporation as mentioned above, the documents shall be entertained and registered by the respondent, if the document is otherwise in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Rules made thereunder.

12. The respondent may forfeit the same in case it has already been incorporated in the document.

13. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal