Libertatem Magazine

Petition Filed Before Madras High Court To Direct Sub Registrar Office of Chennai to Register and Release the Release Deed

Contents of this Page


Vijaya, the petitioner filed a petition before the Madras High Court against the sub-registrar office of Chennai, the respondent seeking to register and release the release deed. The matter was heard and decided upon by Hon’ble Justice R. Suresh Kumar. Mr N. Baaskaran, representing the side of the petitioner, and Mr P. P. Purushothaman, representing from the side of the respondent argued before the Madras High Court.

Facts of the Case

A Petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution claiming for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to register and release the Release Deed in Doc.No.P201600149, dated 9th of December, 2016 executed which was in favour of the petitioner and is pending registration on the file of the respondent.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner presented a document, in Document No.P201600149 dated 9th of December, 2016, which, according to the petitioner and the respondent, was a release document and a sale deed respectively. According to the petitioner, the document in question is not a release deed, it can be treated only as a settlement deed but not as a sale deed, and only fixed stamp duty can be asked by the Sub Registrar for treating it as a settlement, therefore, accordingly, the document shall be released. 

Respondent’s Argument

Mr P. P. Purushothaman, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, stated that before the deed in question dated 9th of December, 2016 was prepared, partition has been effected between the parties, and therefore, the share become an exclusive property of the person who said to have released the same, that too for the consideration, therefore, it can be treated only as a sale deed and therefore, accordingly, the necessary stamp duty should be paid by the petitioner, without which, the document cannot be released by accepting it as a release deed and even in respect of a settlement, it must have been only on love and affection and not for any consideration it can only be treated as a sale deed.

Court’s Observation

To conduct an inquiry by allowing the petitioner, the respondent is ready and willing to give notice and in this regard, though earlier notice has been given, it seems that it has not been served on the petitioner, however, a fresh notice would be served on the petitioner and accordingly, after giving an opportunity of being heard to him, a decision would be taken on merits in the issue by the respondent within a time frame provided by the Court.

Court’s Decision

It is open to the petitioner to appear before the respondent with his defence in written or oral format on the date of hearing and after hearing the plea to be raised by the petitioner, a decision can be taken by the respondent and an order to that effect shall be passed within one week thereafter and the said order shall be communicated by the respondent to the petitioner and depending upon the outcome of the order to be passed, and the remedy can be worked out by the petitioner and accordingly with this direction given by the court the Petition is disposed of.

Click here to view Judgement. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author