DAMAYANTHI Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ appeal, a challenge is made to the order dtd. 6/9/2021 by which the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the appellant dtd. 13/7/2021 and dispose of the same within a stipulated time.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a settlement deed was executed in favour of his daughter and presented for registration. The third respondent refused to register the document in the absence of production of the original title deed of the property. It is despite the fact that the co-sharers have settled their share in the property in question. The elder brother had executed a settlement deed and got it registered also. The appellant wants to settle a part of the property that belongs to him in favour of his daughter, but the settlement deed is not registered in the absence of the original document. Referring to the judgment of this Court, it is submitted that the Registrar cannot insist for production of the original title deed for registration of the document and ignoring the direction given therein, the refusal was made. The appellant challenged the order of the Registrar, though while filing the writ petition only a representation was given along with the required details of the property and copies of documents in possession of the appellant. It was with the allegation that the original deed is in possession of his brother and therefore, it cannot be produced by him. The learned Single Judge issued a direction to the Registrar for consideration of the representation without deciding the issue as to whether he can insist upon the production of the original title deed. The appeal has been filed only for the said reason seeking direction on the Registrar for registration of the settlement deed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that he is the brother of the appellant and is sought to be impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal. He submits that the fourth respondent has no objection if the part of the property shown in the settlement deed is registered in favour of the appellant's daughter. However, it is with the clear statement that he is not in possession of the original title deed rather it may be lying with someone else.