Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Sounthar, J.
Venugopal - Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration and ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.22270 of 2024
Decided On : 14-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.K.D.Rajasekar
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Shahjahan, Special Government Pleader
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the requirement for original title documents under Rule 55-A(i) is not absolute and can be satisfied through alternative means in cases of loss.
Headnote:
Registration - Settlement Deed - Rule 55-A(i) of Registration Act, 1908 - The court interpreted Rule 55-A(i) and its provisions, concluding that the insistence on original title documents for registration is not absolute, allowing for alternative compliance methods in cases of lost documents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal to register a Settlement Deed due to the absence of the original title document, which was lost. The petitioner presented a certified copy and argued that the original was not necessary for registration under the Registration Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to register based solely on the lack of the original title document was not sustainable, as the petitioner could comply with the requirements of Rule 55-A(i) by providing a Non-Traceable Certificate and a newspaper advertisement regarding the loss.
Issues: Whether the refusal to register the Settlement Deed due to the non-production of the original title document was legally justified under the Registration Act and its rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while Rule 55-A(i) requires original documents, it does not create an absolute bar to registration if alternative compliance methods are available, particularly in cases of lost documents.
Result: The court quashed the refusal order and directed the registration of the Settlement Deed upon fulfilling specified conditions.
ORDER :
S.Sounthar, J.
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Refusal Check Slip bearing Refusal Number. RFL / CHENNIMALAI / 25 / 2024 dated 30.04.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register Settlement Deed dated 30.04.2024 without insisting the production of original title document.
The writ petition is filed challenging Refusal Check Slip issued by the 2nd respondent refusing to register the Settlement Deed presented by petitioner for registration on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original title document of the Settlor by relying on Rule 55-A(i) of the rules framed under Registration Act, 1908.
2. According to the petitioner, the property which is sought to be settled was originally belonged to Chennimalai Gounder and his son Kailasanathan. The petitioner purchased the same under registered Sale Deed executed by the above said persons dated 04.06.1980. The petitioner executed a Settlement Deed in respect of the said property in favour of his wife-Revathi and presented it for registration before the 2nd respondent with the certified copy of the original title deed. It was specifically averred by the petitioner that the original title document which was kept in the safe custody was lost and inspite of his best effort, he could not find out the same. It is asserted by the petitioner that he also approached the Police Officials for tracing the document but in vain. In these circumstances, petitionerpresented the Settlement Deed executed by him in favour of his wife with certified copy of the Sale Deed in his favour.
3. Mr.S.K.D.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the order passed by 2nd respondent on the ground that production of original title document is not the sine qua non for registration of the subsequent document under the Registration Act, 1908. He further submitted that production of encumbrance certificate from the date of purchase by the petitioner down to the date of settlement would establish the petitioner has not encumbered the property subsequent to his purchase and therefore, insistence on production of original title document is not tenable in law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Federal Bank Ltd., represented by its Senior Manager vs. Sub Registrar and others in W.P.No.2758 of 2023, dated 08.02.2023.
(ii) M.Ariyanatchi and another vs. Inspector General of Registration and another made in W.A.(MD).No.856 of 2023, dated 27.06.2023.
(iii) S.Sarangapani vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.P.No.21346 of 2019 and batch of cases, dated 26.04.2024.
(iv) Subramani vs. Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar and another in W.P.No.11056 of 2024, dated 26.04.2024.
4. Per contra, Mr.M.Shahjahan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in Federal Bank case referred supra, this Court only declared first proviso to Rule 55-A(i) of Registration Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 as invalid and ultra vires. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the present case is governed by Rule 55-A(i) and third proviso to said Rule. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that if the original deed is lost, it is for the petitioner to follow the mandate under third proviso to Rule 55-A(i) and produce Non-Traceable Certificate issued by Police Department along with the advertisement published in the local Newspaper as to the loss of the original document. He further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the order passed in Palanisamy and another vs. Sub Registrar in W.A.No.974 of 2024, dated 25.03.2024 held that provisions of Rule 55-A are intact in the Rule Books and therefore, it has to be complied scrupulously, whenever docume
