Senthilnathan v. The Joint Sub-Registrar-Ii,

ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side

¶2The document presented for registration was returned on the ground that the original parent deed was not produced.

¶3I need not interfere with the impugned refusal check slip. The second proviso to Rule 55-A Registration Rules provides for remedy in such cases. The petitioner undertakes to follow the said procedure. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the document in question. Subject to fulfilment of the usual statutory requirements, the re-presented document shall be registered.

¶4The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. No costs.

13.12.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No RM To: The Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Palani, Dindigul District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. RM

13.12.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.12.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Senthilnathan ... Petitioner Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Palani, Dindigul District. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the respondent in Refusal Number:RFL/2 vz;/,iz rhh;gjpthsh; gHdp/79/2023 dated 14.11.2023 and quash the same as illegal, consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed, dated 06.11.2023 presented by the petitioner for registration in respect of the property in old survey No.300/1 with an extent of 22.50 cents out of the total extent of 2 acres 68 cents with specific four boundaries situated at Puliyampatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate