Madras HC: Sub- registrar should not insist for original document or non traceability certificate in case of lost document in every case for Property Transfer

 Adverting to the facts on hand, the document that is sought to be registered is a release deed executed by the sister in favour of the brother. The document recites that the property belonged to the father. The parties are not strangers to each other. They have produced registration copies of the antecedent documents which are registered in the very same office. Unless the Registrar has a doubt regarding the genuineness of the copies issued by his own office, insistence on production of originals is a superfluous exercise. As we had already stated, it is a common knowledge and accepted phenomena today that one cannot secure a certificate from a Government office without the price.{Para 10}

In such situation, driving executant of documents to obtain a non traceability certificate in case of lost document in every case, will result only in encouraging under hand dealings. When certified copies have been produced and it is not impossible for the Sub Registrar to have it verified with the original record that is available in his own office, insisting upon a non traceability certificate appears to be rather a wasteful exercise. Even in Punithavathy's case referred to supra, we have observed that the Registrars will not refuse registration particularly, when the parties to the documents are relatives and they take the risk of obtaining the document without examining the title. The copies of the documents have already been produced. The Sub Registrar could have verified the same with the original records in his office and register the instrument without dogmatically refusing registration. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W.A.No.1160 of 2024

P.Pappu Vs  The Sub Registar,

CORAM :

 MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

and

 MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

DATED : 27.09.2024.

Print Page

Whether a party must produce an original Document for Cross-Examination Of The Witness Of the Other Party?

 If the document is produced for the cross-examination of the witness of the other party, the document could be used for cross-examination if the original is produced in the Court. In the present case the copy of the document i.e. the reply to the notice of the Gram Panchayat was already there. The original document was with the defendant's counsel and was shown in the Court but the trail court observed that it is not necessary to produce the document when its copy was already on the record, as secondary evidence could also be availed of. It is really curious how the secondary evidence could be produced when the original was available and was on the file of the defendant's counsel. To that extent, the observations of the trial court are wholly unwarranted. No secondary evidence could be produced when the original exists and is available for production in the Court.

Rajasthan High Court

Pukh Raj vs Gram Panchayat Sanchore on 12 March, 1978

Equivalent citations: 1978 WLN UC 55

Bench: M Joshi

Print Page